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

71–80 of 95 posts

Re: Microsoft backs H.264.

#71

Post by knowtheory »

tomlin wrote: post #37

> 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…

It is very frustrating to hear this constantly touted as hypocrisy.

It is not.

Users and developers are free to use any and all Flash components. Flash itself is a published standard (although proprietary). You can create alternative VMs largely w/o caveat (the only one i've heard raised was some DRM junk having to do with Flash Media Server, which no one should use anyway).

There is no threat of patent licensing hovering over people who use Flash. That is not the case with H.264 encoding.

Furthermore, it is obnoxious that Flash is always uncritically trotted out as the only example of proprietary components in Chrome. What about Java plugins? Anything you want to say about Flash you can say about Java applets.

Please stop spreading FUD.

Also, Google didn't own WebM 5 years ago. It's hardly sensible for criticizing them for not moving more quickly on the issue.

Re: Microsoft backs H.264.

#72

Post by ZeroGravitas »

kenjackson wrote: post #70
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's an analysis, which builds on the analysis in your link. I think it's obvious which one makes more sense if you read both: http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/an-analysis-of-webm-and-its-p... Some highlights: "Dark Shikari makes several considerations, some related to the implementation itself, and many related to its “patent status”. For example: “VP8’s intra prediction is basically ripped off wholesale from H.264″…

That's not an analysis, but a commentary on the work Jason did. But he says a lot of BS, like, "In fact, one of the most brain damaged things of the current software patent situation is the fact that if a company performs a patent search and finds a potential infringing patent it may incur in additional damages for willful infringement (called “treble damages”). So, the actual approach is to perform the same analysis…

Mozilla's on the record as being told by their counsel not to openly publish patent research they did for Theora. They weren't happy about it, because it opens them up to FUD, but we all know patent law is messed up, one more absurdity shouldn't surprise us.

Re: Microsoft backs H.264.

#74

Post by haberman »

kenjackson wrote: post #60
haberman wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I'd "call even money on" is that patent holders who are looking for a piece of the video decoding royalty pie would have jumped on the MPEG-LA gravy train already. I also would bet that Google's legal team knows what they're doing.

patent holders who are looking for a piece of the video decoding royalty pie would have jumped on the MPEG-LA gravy train already. They have... they're called members of the pool. The same ones that came after Microsoft when MS did VC-1. The same ones who will come after WebM.

Google already knows about them. And has bet the future on WebM anyway. I trust Google's legal counsel more than I trust you.

What if H.264 infringes on some of Google's patents? Google could countersue and go after members of MPEG-LA, or even end-users of H.264. Google's patent license only covers Google's WebM implementation.

Re: Microsoft backs H.264.

#75

Post by tomlin »

knowtheory wrote: post #71
tomlin wrote: post #37

> 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…

It is very frustrating to hear this constantly touted as hypocrisy. It is not. Users and developers are free to use any and all Flash components. Flash itself is a published standard (although proprietary). You can create alternative VMs largely w/o caveat (the only one i've heard raised was some DRM junk having to do with Flash Media Server, which no one should use anyway). There is no threat of patent licensing hov…

> It's hardly sensible for criticizing them for not moving more quickly on the issue.

I'm not criticizing Google. I realize there was a time where WebM was VP8.

When I say WebM needed to be here 5 years ago, that's all I'm saying. No one company, standards body, org. is to blame.

> There is no threat of patent licensing hovering over people who use Flash. That is not the case with H.264 encoding.

Agreed. The individual user is not effected. The browser, and those who encode en masse for profit are exposed to potential pitfalls of the licensing. I'm not saying these royalties are debilitating or that the web will cripple into a video-less nothingness.

What I am saying is: If we can replace something proprietary with something more open, that is a good thing.

> Please stop spreading FUD.

It really seems as though you're spreading FUD by ascertaining my opinions as allegiance to one camp or another.

I'll admit I have a slight distaste for those who insist that H.264's penetration is reason alone to continue using it. Especially when I, up until a few years ago, was a lead Flash developer. Mainly due to Apple's insistence that Flash was the devil. I want you to see the ignorant, double-standard here. Flash and H.264 both have high penetration rates. Both are used extensively on the web and beyond. Yet only Flash must die? See how this is completely asinine?

Instead of pointing a finger at Apple and declare them the enemy of my camp, I examined the situation for benefits instead of fear.

Many thousand Flash developers will eventually hang up their tried-and-true tools in search for a better way. A more open, standards-abiding, creative community.

If we (Flash developers) can do it, I'm sure H,264 blowhards can do the same.

Re: Microsoft backs H.264.

#76

Post by kenjackson »

haberman wrote: post #74
kenjackson wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

patent holders who are looking for a piece of the video decoding royalty pie would have jumped on the MPEG-LA gravy train already. They have... they're called members of the pool. The same ones that came after Microsoft when MS did VC-1. The same ones who will come after WebM.

Google already knows about them. And has bet the future on WebM anyway. I trust Google's legal counsel more than I trust you. What if H.264 infringes on some of Google's patents? Google could countersue and go after members of MPEG-LA, or even end-users of H.264. Google's patent license only covers Google's WebM implementation.

You do realize that Google's legal counsel has very little say in this. Google's engineers are making the call and the counsel is just providing legal advice. The legal counsel doesn't know what is infringing on what.

With that said, you'd probably say that you trust Google's engineers more than me. I'd hope so. You have no idea who I am.

Re: Microsoft backs H.264.

#77

Post by anonymous246 »

beej71 wrote: post #40
imajes wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Both commonly used OS's (Windows and Mac) have OS-level services to play H.264. No need for browser to license anything.

In this instance, Mozilla has gone out of it's way to not use the OS-level facility, forcing Microsoft to write a plugin to make that happen.

Re: Microsoft backs H.264.

#78

Post by msbarnett »

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

Microsoft has stated in the past that they pay more into the Pool each year than they get out in payments for the patents they have in the Pool. I forget how many patents Microsoft has in the pool, but it's more than Apple, who only has one patent in there, which implies that Apple is getting even less money out than Microsoft.

In other words, I doubt either company is directly making a profit on h.264 licensing payments.

Re: Microsoft backs H.264.

#79

Post by recoiledsnake »

haberman wrote: post #74
kenjackson wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

patent holders who are looking for a piece of the video decoding royalty pie would have jumped on the MPEG-LA gravy train already. They have... they're called members of the pool. The same ones that came after Microsoft when MS did VC-1. The same ones who will come after WebM.

Google already knows about them. And has bet the future on WebM anyway. I trust Google's legal counsel more than I trust you. What if H.264 infringes on some of Google's patents? Google could countersue and go after members of MPEG-LA, or even end-users of H.264. Google's patent license only covers Google's WebM implementation.

If so then what is the reason Google is not providing patent indemnification? If it does, MS would bundle it with IE9 (perhaps even the OS) instantly allowing about 40% of worldwide to seamlessly watch WebM content.

I guess Google is afraid of being sued for billions for the hundreds of millions of installs that Windows and/or IE9 ship.

Re: Microsoft backs H.264.

#80

Post by recoiledsnake »

orangecat wrote: post #47
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So Microsoft gets a 50% discount on a tax that already benefits larger, incumbent companies by protecting them from up and coming competitors and it's incompatible with many open source and freeware business models used by competitors. And this is presented as if they're some kind of selfless saint for paying into this racket?

Bingo. Microsoft and Apple support H.264 for the same reasons that Walmart supports minimum wage increases and Mattel supports extensive product testing regulations.

If you read Microsoft's blog post, Microsoft is not taking sides on this like every other player is.

All they want is not to be liable for billions in damages if WebM is found infringing on some company's patents. They're supporting it via plugins if the user installs and are ready to bundle it with the OS if Google or someone else provides indemnification. They are relatively comfortable with H.264 because most of the major players are already in the pool and the standard has been around for a while, reducing chances of patent suits.

The ball is in Google's court now. They and their supporters are all over the internet saying that WebM has been vetted for patent infringement etc. Now they need to tell us why their belief is not enough to indemnify distributors and end users.

Post reply on HN