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

Google Removing H.264 Support in Chrome

blog.chromium.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 358 posts

Re: Google Removing H.264 Support in Chrome

#271

Post by cookiecaper »

plorkyeran wrote: post #159
Raphael_Amiard wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ffmpeg does already supports webm, and the encoder is quite good from what i gathered, since it's done by the same crew than x264

ffmpeg only has a working webm decoder. xvp8 (the x264-based encoder) hasn't been touched for a few months and is basically vaporware.

In #ffmpeg on freenode:

(09:50:48 PM) sjuxax: Guy on HN said this: "ffmpeg only has a working webm decoder. xvp8 (the x264-based encoder) hasn't been touched for a few months and is basically vaporware"

(09:50:50 PM) sjuxax: true?

...

(09:52:34 PM) Dark_Shikari: not quite true

(09:52:42 PM) Dark_Shikari: close, but not quite.

(09:52:58 PM) Dark_Shikari: 1) the github tree hasn't been updated

(09:53:05 PM) Dark_Shikari: there is more stuff that isn't in the tree yet

(09:53:13 PM) Dark_Shikari: 2) Ronald is dealing with his first baby boy, give him some slack

(09:53:20 PM) Dark_Shikari: 3) Google just hired him full-time for a year to work solely on xvp8

and later on...

(10:12:27 PM) Dark_Shikari: tl;dr: it's kinda vaporware, there's a bit of work done, but it will stop being vaporware in march when Ronald goes to work for Google.

Re: Google Removing H.264 Support in Chrome

#272

Post by bane »

danudey wrote: post #257
spoondan wrote: post #242

I like Gruber, but he's almost insufferable on issues like these. These questions are "simple" in the least flattering sense. Let's dispatch them: If H.264 support is being removed to “enable open innovation”, will Flash Player support be dropped as well? If not, why? The premise is that openness is all or nothing. But Google can support Flash and work towards openness, just as Apple can prefer open web standards in…

What I don't understand is how Chrome can remove h.264 (which is widely used) because they want 'openness', while at the same time shipping a browser (Chrome) where you cannot remove Flash (which continues to support H.264). It seems here that keeping H.264 support and dropping Flash would be more in the name of openness. (Edit: bane points out that you can disable Flash in Chrome. My original point still stands, but…

while at the same time shipping a browser (Chrome) where you cannot remove Flash (which continues to support H.264)

You can turn off flash in Chrome

about:plugins

Re: Google Removing H.264 Support in Chrome

#273

Post by nkassis »

KeithMajhor wrote: post #250
bphogan wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple's stance on Flash does hurt users. But its stance on vodeo? Hardly. They chose an established, proven format that has hardware decoding capabilities. That means they could include it cheaply, and in a way that doesn't drain battery like a software decoder would.

Apple's stance on Flash hurts users _now_. But, I still envy my future self living in a world where Flash is dead. The same can be said about Google hurting users _now_. Pushing content producers towards an open and maintainable format has obvious long term advantages.

That's exactly my view, both moves are good to me. HTML5 video is still young and barely used currently, it's the time to try to shape how it will be used. If you wait 5 years, h264 will be impossible to displace and everyone will have to get software with a license, hurting all of us even more.

Re: Google Removing H.264 Support in Chrome

#274

Post by bane »

rabidsnail wrote: post #224
vetinari wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) You aren't going to get H.264 decoder for free. There will be always at least license fees to MPEG-LA. 2) Current hardware video decoders are DSPs. You are not going to "waste valuable board space". It is a program in ROM, it is easy to change H.264 to VP8, you will probably even save some space.

1) Those license fees approach zero as you produce more units. 2) If I'm not mistaken they're not general purpose computers. If they were what would be the point? Why not use a math coprocessor?

DSPs are programmable, limited functionality, computers.

TI I believe is the largest vendors of DSPs for hardware decoding/encoding

http://focus.ti.com/dsp/docs/dsphome.tsp?sectionId=46&DC...

Re: Google Removing H.264 Support in Chrome

#275

Post by bane »

dev_jim wrote: post #93
Raphael_Amiard wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well i don't know. What i see : Adobe is gonna support webm. So having only one format is gonna be possible. Browsers who supported or were gonna support H264 : - Safari (5% market share) - IE9 (0% market share right now, probably around 15% in 3 years) - Chrome (around 13 %) Browsers who supports Webm : - Firefox (30% market share) - Chrome - IE9 will probably support it via codecs which is better than nothing The b…

> The big deal breaker i see is the mobile devices who natively support H264 You kind of buried this but this is the true deal breaker. There aren't (and probably won't be) hardware WebM decoders. And Firefox doesn't support WebM yet. You'll have to wait on version 4 (0% market share right now as you said for IE9).

There aren't _(and probably won't be)_ hardware WebM decoders.

http://googland.blogspot.com/2011/01/g-availability-of-webm-...

The Oulu team will release the first VP8 video hardware encoder IP in the first quarter of 2011. We have the IP running in an FPGA environment, and rigorous testing is underway. Once all features have been tested and implemented, the encoder will be launched as well.

Re: Google Removing H.264 Support in Chrome

#276

Post by bane »

danudey wrote: post #263
Raphael_Amiard wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well i don't know. What i see : Adobe is gonna support webm. So having only one format is gonna be possible. Browsers who supported or were gonna support H264 : - Safari (5% market share) - IE9 (0% market share right now, probably around 15% in 3 years) - Chrome (around 13 %) Browsers who supports Webm : - Firefox (30% market share) - Chrome - IE9 will probably support it via codecs which is better than nothing The b…

The problem is that content providers have yet another option to choose from, but so far one that is supported by almost no one. Firefox will support WebM, and so will Chrome, so to reach those browsers you either need WebM, or Flash. Flash also supports h.264 video, as do most mobile devices (Android, iPhone, iPad, iPod Touch, Windows Phone 7, Zune even) and game consoles (XBox, PS3, and afaik the Wii). In fact from…

Software decoding video isn't really that big of a deal. Even mobile processors are powerful enough...

(yes, it'll consume battery like a dry horse drinks water in a desert)

Re: Google Removing H.264 Support in Chrome

#277

Post by danudey »

bane wrote: post #276
danudey wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that content providers have yet another option to choose from, but so far one that is supported by almost no one. Firefox will support WebM, and so will Chrome, so to reach those browsers you either need WebM, or Flash. Flash also supports h.264 video, as do most mobile devices (Android, iPhone, iPad, iPod Touch, Windows Phone 7, Zune even) and game consoles (XBox, PS3, and afaik the Wii). In fact from…

Software decoding video isn't really that big of a deal. Even mobile processors are powerful enough... (yes, it'll consume battery like a dry horse drinks water in a desert)

> (yes, it'll consume battery like a dry horse drinks water in a desert)

For mobile devices, that's a huge deal. There are no resources more scarce than battery power on a mobile device.

Re: Google Removing H.264 Support in Chrome

#278

Post by extension »

mbrubeck wrote: post #155
extension wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have they said or done something that conflicts with this statement?

Their implementations of the HTML5 and draft standards work only with royalty-encumbered codecs. (The licensing is currently royalty-free for publishers and end users, but not for device manufacturers or browser vendors.)

Have they ever proposed that those codecs be part of the standard?

Re: Google Removing H.264 Support in Chrome

#279

Post by bane »

Heff wrote: post #105
marbletiles wrote: post #25

Google's assumption: People will add WebM encoding to their already complicated video workflows What will actually happen: Chrome will get served h.264 wrapped in Flash. Lose all round, then.

Which sucks for HTML5 video. Without Chrome, only about 5% of web users actually support HTML5 playback using h.264. Chart: http://videojs.com/2011/01/google-is-dropping-h-264-from-chr... Two things could end the format war. 1. Apple adopts WebM (which requires WebM hardware for iOS devices) 2. MPEG LA removes all royalties from h.264

1. Apple adopts WebM (which requires WebM hardware for iOS devices)

Why? Aren't the iOS devices powerful enough to software decode WebM streams?

Re: Google Removing H.264 Support in Chrome

#280

Post by bane »

redler wrote: post #249
blocke wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? "Disruptive Technology" don't happen? Google drove the cost of smartphone OSes down to as near to zero as patent law will allow. I'd say that is a game changer. How much does WebM cost?

The issue is not whether it's a game changer. Apple's game is to build devices, software, and a highly consistent and polished user experience, irresistable to buyers and app developers, all in an effort to capture maximum profit share. Google's game is to build a similar OS that is irresistible to device makers, all in an effort to maximize market share and the advertising revenues boiling off the free app ecosystem…

Agreed,

Both companies seem to be doing wildly well with their respective mobile strategies.

Post reply on HN