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

31–40 of 168 posts

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

#31

Post by sudont »

masklinn wrote: post #14
jasonlotito wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Except that it further entrenches Flash in the short to medium term, possibly longer. Only because Microsoft and Apple choose not to support WebM. Prior to Google's choice, Firefox (with rather significant browser usage stats) wasn't supporting H.264 either, which kept Flash on the web. Also, people keep referring to IE, but it still needs Flash. Sure, IE9 is coming, but we'll see what the adoption rates will be li…

> Only because Microsoft and Apple choose not to support WebM. When they made their choice WebM wasn't an option because it didn't even exist yet . Microsoft might be a different issue, but Apple has now shipped almost 150M devices with hardware h.264 support and no webm support at all. > You completely miss the point. GIF is a lesson, and we should learn from it. GIF is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand (or…

> WebM wasn't an option because it didn't even exist yet.

And when WebMx is released, everybody will hound those who don't immediately change their product strategy to fit this. This is also a good reason for why Apple isn't using WebM: it's not a standard, it's as controlled by Google as Flash is controlled by Adobe.

They're essentially giving a bunch of control of their device to an outside company.

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

#32

Post by spiffworks »

cletus wrote: post #29
spiffworks wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You missed the most critical point, which is "This license is fundamentally incompatible with software freedom. It requires developers to restrict how their software can be used, and to collect royalties in many situations." And that is what it is all about. H.264 imposes end-user licenses and if it gets entrenched, freely redistributable browsers would lose. The argument against dropping H.264 is basically "why swit…

> "This license is fundamentally incompatible with software freedom. It requires developers to restrict how their software can be used, and to collect royalties in many situations." According to the FSF's definition of software freedom. The FSF has quite a radical view in this regard. A Microsoft exec once described the GPL as "viral' [1] and it's a fair point. Many view licenses like MIT and Apache as being more fre…

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 never once used the word in my post.

>What do you mean "if"? It already has.

You're arguing for the status quo. Everything seems entrenched until an alternative comes along.

You seem to completely ignore that the H.264 license is directly opposed to free software. There's a reason Chromium never supported H.264, while only Chrome did. Nobody except the patent holders benefits from a de facto patent-encumbered codec.

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

#33

Post by spiffworks »

jasonlotito wrote: post #24
masklinn wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Only because Microsoft and Apple choose not to support WebM. When they made their choice WebM wasn't an option because it didn't even exist yet . Microsoft might be a different issue, but Apple has now shipped almost 150M devices with hardware h.264 support and no webm support at all. > You completely miss the point. GIF is a lesson, and we should learn from it. GIF is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand (or…

> When they made their choice WebM wasn't an option because it didn't even exist yet. IE9 is still in development. They can still choose to support WebM. Apple could still choose to WebM support. The point isn't that Apple and Microsoft can choose. Rather, you can't expect to ask Google to support H.264 and not ask Microsoft and Apple to support WebM. Apple and Microsoft don't want to support it. Fine. Google doesn't…

> Apple could still choose to WebM support.

In fact, Imagination Technologies, the people who make the GPUs for the iPhone(and the iPad as well, I think), have already announced full vp8 support in their next-gen hardware decoders, so it would be really easy for Apple to include webm support in the next iPhone or the one after that. And they're safe from any patent threats as well, since they're already MPEG-LA licensees. It will be interesting to see if they do.

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

#34

Post by Someone »

xutopia wrote: post #8

I always saw this as a problem with the FSF. They are urging web site operators to use WebM right away when there isn't even support for them. They simply sound so naive when they say "Today, we're also urging Web site operators to distribute videos in the WebM format, and abandon H.264". What they should be saying is "Prepare your web sites to transition to WebM".

I disagree. You cannot have a revolution without at least some pain.

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

#35

Post by ZeroGravitas »

jasonlotito wrote: post #28
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'…

Google supports Adobe Flash, and has dropped support for Google's implementation of H.264 inside Chrome. One is a plugin. One was not. I agree with your comment, and I find the Flash/H.264/Chrome argument to be childish at best.

If an Apple or Microsoft blogger finds themselves taking a more hardline stance than the FSF, it's easy to conclude that they're trolling/astroturfing.

However if we're talking "childish", then the "Plugins! I thought the point of HTML5 was to avoid plugins" argument wins by a mile. People, including Google, have been pushing HTML5 via various plugins, fallbacks and shims for a good while (e.g. Chrome Frame, Google Gears, Flash Vorbis decode, Java Theora decode etc.)

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

#36

Post by ZeroGravitas »

pohl wrote: post #30
patrickaljord wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

H.264 baseline codec is similar to vp8, not superior. And baseline is what is used on mobile and all hardware encoders, so the highest versions of H.264 don't even matter.

...baseline is what is used on mobile... That's the market segment that the baseline profile was conceived for, but the phone in my pocket and the tablet on my nightstand both support the main profile. Sure, most content that I view on it is probably encoded in baseline, but there are 17 million iPads in the wild that support the main profile. Edit: it's not just iOS devices, either. The Playstation Portable supports…

The iPad really should have supported High Profile. No-one's going to encode a 3rd version for the iPad when everyone else jumped straight from Baseline to High, which means it's effectively Baseline.

Seems strange that the iPhone 4 got better specs so shortly after (much like the 256MB memory). I'm sure they'll fix it in the next rev though, which just increases the chance that rev. 1 devices will be served Baseline.

edit: I just checked and the iPhone's only 720p Main Profile too? I'm confused now, I was sure iPhone 4 went to High Profile.

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

#37

Post by spiffworks »

sudont wrote: post #31
masklinn wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Only because Microsoft and Apple choose not to support WebM. When they made their choice WebM wasn't an option because it didn't even exist yet . Microsoft might be a different issue, but Apple has now shipped almost 150M devices with hardware h.264 support and no webm support at all. > You completely miss the point. GIF is a lesson, and we should learn from it. GIF is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand (or…

> WebM wasn't an option because it didn't even exist yet. And when WebMx is released, everybody will hound those who don't immediately change their product strategy to fit this. This is also a good reason for why Apple isn't using WebM: it's not a standard, it's as controlled by Google as Flash is controlled by Adobe. They're essentially giving a bunch of control of their device to an outside company.

The webm spec is frozen, and all patents are irrevocably licensed. Webm is not 'controlled' by Google.

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

#38

Post by neworbit »

rimantas wrote: post #21
nikster wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't buy the argument that it strengthens Flash. Flash and H.264 are both 90% YouTube, e.g. Google. Google can, therefore, flip a switch and turn everything to WebM. They just need broad support in place first. If Google says they will switch YouTube to WebM gradually, then all the browsers and devices will need to support it. End of story.

Care to elaborate, how do I solder that WebM chip into my iPhone 4?

At least it's possible to get a software update to the Youtube player on your iPhone. It's not like, say, changing a battery.

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

#39

Post by ashearer »

rimantas wrote: post #21
nikster wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't buy the argument that it strengthens Flash. Flash and H.264 are both 90% YouTube, e.g. Google. Google can, therefore, flip a switch and turn everything to WebM. They just need broad support in place first. If Google says they will switch YouTube to WebM gradually, then all the browsers and devices will need to support it. End of story.

Care to elaborate, how do I solder that WebM chip into my iPhone 4?

Graphics chips with built-in WebM support are slated to ship this quarter. It's not hard to imagine that the 2012 iPhone hardware will get this ability for free, even if it's only a side effect of using the same graphics chips as Android devices.

Then it's just up to Apple whether to turn it on. Google appears to be laying the groundwork it can now so that the answer is more likely to be yes.

This will take a few years to play out.

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

#40

Post by sudont »

spiffworks wrote: post #37
sudont wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> WebM wasn't an option because it didn't even exist yet. And when WebMx is released, everybody will hound those who don't immediately change their product strategy to fit this. This is also a good reason for why Apple isn't using WebM: it's not a standard, it's as controlled by Google as Flash is controlled by Adobe. They're essentially giving a bunch of control of their device to an outside company.

The webm spec is frozen, and all patents are irrevocably licensed. Webm is not 'controlled' by Google.

The patent thing is just FUD by Apple proponents. But, I won't support WebM until it's an ISO standard, frozen is just a promise at this point.

Their own site says "dedicated to developing a high-quality..." which, taken literally, means that the project is still underway. Also listed on the front page: "Submit patches and improvements" Yet again, saying that it's a work in progress.

Post reply on HN