Decoding the HTML 5 video codec debate
arstechnica.com
Decoding the HTML 5 video codec debate
1–10 of 27 posts
Re: Decoding the HTML 5 video codec debate
#2The licensing fees for H.264 that go into effect next year should kill it off pretty quickly.
Of course, we should really just get rid of software patents.
Re: Decoding the HTML 5 video codec debate
#3There is no debate. Hixie removed the relevant portions from the spec. There is now no required codec. Unless the landscape changes significantly, there will be no required video codec.
It's unfortunate, but it isn't the catastrophe that the article implies. The vendors that are going to support Theora out of the box are going to do so anyway, and the vendors that are going to support h264 out of the box are going to do so anyway. Standardizing on either wouldn't have done nothing but dissociate the spec from reality.
Re: Decoding the HTML 5 video codec debate
#4"Some critics even contend that it's not possible to advance Theora without inevitably hitting a patent wall."
This article and the HTML 5 codec issue in general really illustrates the stifling effect that software patents are having on technical progress.
Are there any compelling reasons left to keep software patents around? It seems like they're doing way more harm than good.
Re: Decoding the HTML 5 video codec debate
#5There is no debate. Hixie removed the relevant portions from the spec. There is now no required codec. Unless the landscape changes significantly, there will be no required video codec. It's unfortunate, but it isn't the catastrophe that the article implies. The vendors that are going to support Theora out of the box are going to do so anyway , and the vendors that are going to support h264 out of the box are going t…
Standardizing on either wouldn't have done nothing but dissociate the spec from reality.
So now web designers have to deal with incompatibilities introduced in the last century, as well as ones introduced in yet-to-be published specs.
What is the point of standards if everyone is going to ignore them? The HTML5 committee could have saved a lot of time by not writing the spec and instead concentrating on a free reference implementation. (When browser vendors have to implement a spec on their own, they are going to cut corners to make things easy. If they can just cut-n-paste from a reference implementation, they will probably just use that.)
Re: Decoding the HTML 5 video codec debate
#6The licensing fees for H.264 that go into effect next year should kill it off pretty quickly. Of course, we should really just get rid of software patents.
Film/video post-production guy here. Agree about software patents but I'm not so sure about the licensing in this case. The thing is, h.264 really is very very good at what it does.
I don't think it's so bad to reward that with a license fee, and the patent administrators are benign dictators. There are lots of exceptions to allow startups to use it, there are sub-inflation caps on the fee increases, and the maximum license fee per hardware device is 20 cents. Online is a bit more complex but still very cheap. full terms here: http://www.mpegla.com/avc/AVC_TermsSummary.pdf
On principle, I lean towards a totally free software solution. But pragmatically, this is a very fair approach to administering a patent for a technology which delivers a lot of value, and and I think h.264 will persist for that reason.
Re: Decoding the HTML 5 video codec debate
#7The licensing fees for H.264 that go into effect next year should kill it off pretty quickly. Of course, we should really just get rid of software patents.
Film/video post-production guy here. Agree about software patents but I'm not so sure about the licensing in this case. The thing is, h.264 really is very very good at what it does. I don't think it's so bad to reward that with a license fee, and the patent administrators are benign dictators. There are lots of exceptions to allow startups to use it, there are sub-inflation caps on the fee increases, and the maximum…
Is it really so cheap? If so, it seems that it should be possible to create a mechanism which could cover these fees for open-source projects. Perhaps someone like Mozilla or Canonical or other open-source advocates could create a fund for such things? In an ideal world, we wouldn't have to pay licensing fees for this. But this seems a small price to pay for a standard video codec. Is there anything like this for .mp3 support?
Re: Decoding the HTML 5 video codec debate
#8There is no debate. Hixie removed the relevant portions from the spec. There is now no required codec. Unless the landscape changes significantly, there will be no required video codec. It's unfortunate, but it isn't the catastrophe that the article implies. The vendors that are going to support Theora out of the box are going to do so anyway , and the vendors that are going to support h264 out of the box are going t…
Standardizing on either wouldn't have done nothing but dissociate the spec from reality. So now web designers have to deal with incompatibilities introduced in the last century, as well as ones introduced in yet-to-be published specs. What is the point of standards if everyone is going to ignore them? The HTML5 committee could have saved a lot of time by not writing the spec and instead concentrating on a free refere…
A reference implementation based on what spec?
Re: Decoding the HTML 5 video codec debate
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
Standardizing on either wouldn't have done nothing but dissociate the spec from reality. So now web designers have to deal with incompatibilities introduced in the last century, as well as ones introduced in yet-to-be published specs. What is the point of standards if everyone is going to ignore them? The HTML5 committee could have saved a lot of time by not writing the spec and instead concentrating on a free refere…
A reference implementation based on what spec?
Whatever the authors of the reference implementation felt like writing. Just like all the major browsers that are supposedly "standards compliant", but without pretending to be something it's not.
(People don't want a standard saying how to play videos on the web. They want to be able to say and have it work for all their users, including those using free software.)
Re: Decoding the HTML 5 video codec debate
#10So doesn't Theora just win? Most Mac users seem to use Firefox, so Safari has a marketshare just a touch above Chrome. Still essentially a rounding error.