Mozilla considers H.264 video support after Google's WebM fails to gain traction

24

Comments

  • auxioauxio Posts: 1,638member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DrDoppio View Post


    I don't know if anyone has mentioned it, but the Google Inc. Oracle trial date has been scheduled for April. Will be interesting to see how this plays out.



    I was just going to say, the jury's still out on whether Google is going to pay for cloning JavaME.
  • applegreenapplegreen Posts: 421member
    I don't use Chrome because I don't trust Google. Firefox was my primary browser, but it has deteriorated in performance. I mainly use Safari now. It has become much better in terms of speed.
  • tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 39,975member
    Who cares about current tech, I want to hear that people are getting behind HEVC. Mozilla had this coming to them, choosing only to support OGG and all; I want to hear about HEVC sponsorship.
  • auxioauxio Posts: 1,638member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleGreen View Post


    I don't use Chrome because I don't trust Google. Firefox was my primary browser, but it has deteriorated in performance. I mainly use Safari now. It has become much better in terms of speed.



    For me, the speed of Safari was never a problem, it was the incompatibility. My workplace uses a lot of oddball web-based technologies for their infrastructure which tend to be incompatible with Safari. Thankfully, the vast majority of the issues have gone away in recent years.
  • hill60hill60 Posts: 6,959member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by auxio View Post


    For me, the speed of Safari was never a problem, it was the incompatibility. My workplace uses a lot of oddball web-based technologies for their infrastructure which tend to be incompatible with Safari. Thankfully, the vast majority of the issues have gone away in recent years.



    My workplace uses IE7 on their XP based machines, as web technology has progressed they have pushed out Firefox & Chrome for some sites.



    At home I use Safari and Firefox.
  • timmydaxtimmydax Posts: 284member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by auxio View Post


    For me, the speed of Safari was never a problem, it was the incompatibility. My workplace uses a lot of oddball web-based technologies for their infrastructure which tend to be incompatible with Safari. Thankfully, the vast majority of the issues have gone away in recent years.



    Ironically, this could be due in part to the wide-spread adoption of webkit-based browsers, including Chrome...
  • fake_william_shatnerfake_william_shatner Posts: 660member
    I LIKE fewer Video CODECs as long as they are the BETTER CODECs. Putting out a video in Flash or H.264 of MPEG 2 -- it's not the part of the creative process I appreciate.



    WebM had to do a lot of run-arounds to avoid IP in H.264. But ultimately, it died because not enough licensing deals, and the world does not need MORE standards -- it wants ONE standard. Whoever wins, however, should not be allowed to dictate how the standard is used -- and compensation and licensing need to be reasonable and clear.



    Hopefully, we will one day have a patent and IP system where better ideas and prior art don't choke and stagnate technology--WebM was an example of trying to work AROUND the best available technology to create something unencumbered by patents. It's getting to where you have to have more Legal hours than programming hours on new code.



    If H.264 became patent free in the near future -- most of us would benefit.



    VP6 through VP8 are probably better codecs for High Compression + High Quality than Sorenson -- which used to be good for "High quality with a little compression" but really lost quality quickly at lower bit rates. Marketing however, dictates whether Sorenson or VP get in Flash Video or in H.264.



    It would be nice if ALL of these could run through H.264 of QuickTime, and that there were easier terms to license -- which inhibits adoption. The whole idea of QT was to be a package for codecs, and in the future -- I don't see why the de-compression algorithm cannot just be a little packet at the front of the video file ... wasn't that the idea with modern CODECs?



    Well, it's in the best interest of Adobe to have people serve up FLV's -- so of course, because of business models, they will work to get a proprietary advantage.



    The "standards" should just be licensing aggregators -- Ideally ANY CODEC could be used. A better one comes along, and your old H.264 device should be able to play it.



    >> What we HAVE is a system where economic interests are diametrically apposed to the public interest and interoperability. What we NEED is some way to compensate innovation and patents that rewards innovation but NOT patent hoarding.
  • fake_william_shatnerfake_william_shatner Posts: 660member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TimmyDax View Post


    Ironically, this could be due in part to the wide-spread adoption of webkit-based browsers, including Chrome...



    I wouldn't say that was Ironic at all. I would say that was the GOAL when Apple decided to go with an open source technology and improve it.



    If the iPhone had not become popular, and Google not followed Apple's lead using WebKit (Kerberos), then likely Microsoft would STILL be playing havoc with standards and everybody would use Internet Explorer so things on the web wouldn't break.
  • alfiejralfiejr Posts: 1,524member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


    I wouldn't rule that out. Firefox has really lost a lot of ground since Chrome came on the scene.



    Google totally suckered Mozilla. they convinced them to cripple FireFox competitively without H264 while they pushed Chrome with it, never following through on their promise to drop it too.



    how could this con be any more blatant? talk about drinking the Google-Aid ... how could Mozilla fans be so dumb and so blind?



    oh that's right - Do No Evil!
  • lowededwookielowededwookie Posts: 677member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AdonisSMU View Post


    Two issues to resolve...



    Ads

    DRM



    Ads are nothing and don't require Flash when they can do all that in HTML5 anyway.



    HTML5 has a DRM specification so there is 0 reasons for Flash to exist.
  • knocksknocks Posts: 5member
    I understand when you [insult removed] bash Google. You need someone to hate, that's just how you are.



    But why in hell would you hate on Mozilla, too? Do the volunteers who freed the web from the dominance of IE deserve your spiteful articles? Give me a fucking break.
  • solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Knocks View Post


    I understand when you moron fanboys bash Google. You need someone to hate, that's just how you are.



    But why in hell would you hate on Mozilla, too? Do the volunteers who freed the web from the dominance of IE deserve your spiteful articles? Give me a fucking break.



    Slow your roll.
  • freerangefreerange Posts: 1,447member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hill60 View Post


    It's almost as if Google caused Firefox to be held back while Chrome was gaining a foothold.



    Mozilla just woke up with a sore anus and some crumpled dollar bills clutched in their hand, wondering wtf happened..



    And may "do no evil" burn in hell!
  • djrumpydjrumpy Posts: 1,116member
    I already moved my friends and family off of Mozilla. When they started forcing their views onto their users I lost interest. Trying to force someone to use 'open' simply because it's open (their term, not mine) is no less 'evil' in my book.
  • javacowboyjavacowboy Posts: 785member
    None of you probably care, but this probably mean that Linux users either get left out entirely or have to install legally grey H.264 plugins themselves.
  • mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    It is not like Mozilla is going to take away support for WebM now. It will be good that Mozilla supports both. Almost every software vendor on the planet with the exception of Apple and Microsoft already support WebM. Google was completely off track when they tried to make WebM 'THE' video standard, but now that it is out there you can't really take it back. So long as YouTube doesn't go exclusively WebM and drop H.264 I think Apple users will be ok. Even though Apple itself appears to be moving away from YouTube as they wean themselves from Google services, I don't see YouTube's popularity decreasing with the general public. It is probably more popular than ever.
  • waltfrenchwaltfrench Posts: 28member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Alfiejr View Post


    Google totally suckered Mozilla. they convinced them to cripple FireFox competitively without H264 while they pushed Chrome with it, never following through on their promise to drop it too.



    how could this con be any more blatant? talk about drinking the Google-Aid ... how could Mozilla fans be so dumb and so blind?



    oh that's right - Do No Evil!



    I haven't found recent specifics, but Mozilla reports that Google has
    1. renewed its agreeement whereby Mozilla gets a share of Firefox-originated ad revs, and

    2. substantially upped its grant to the foundation.

    I have absolutely no reason to claim that Mozilla is acting as Google's tool here, but they're not their fool, necessarily, either. Google's needs and strategy necessarily evolve, and Firefox is going thru the same.
  • waltfrenchwaltfrench Posts: 28member
    This is a fine article: fun reading, spiced up a bit with some claims that can't be proven.



    But please, you should better understand things than to say, “[WebM] was still based on technologies that the MPEG Licensing Authority claimed to own…”. This is wrong on a couple of levels.



    First, MPEG-LA serves as a clearinghouse for patent licensing — one-stop shopping for anybody who wants to use h.264 or VC-1 or etc. The patent-holders (generally, authors) have asked MPEG-LA, which is NOT affiliated with MPEG, to license them but haven't given MPEG-LA authority to sue over them or get too creative with the terms.



    Patent pools are conveniences, only. Motorola once trumpeted its involvement with MPEG-LA, but has NOT contributed its own h.264 patents to the MPEG-LA pool; it is suing Microsoft because MS hasn't licensed them directly from Moto on terms that were mutually satisfactory, and Moto asked a court to order MS to pay up. MPEG-LA has zero authority to compel any patent holder to join a pool; their expertise is to vet which patents are actually essential to a standard (so people like me don't just claim my butt-scratching device is part of the pool), and hang out a shingle for buyers.



    Roughly a year ago, MPEG-LA invited anybody who had patents that were necessary to VP8 / WebM, to submit them for scrutiny and for licensing as part of the pool. In March, a story appeared in the WSJ that both the Dept of Justice and the California AG had been asked to look into anti-trust actions by MPEG-LA. All the other news stories referenced the WSJ, and I have seen no follow-up. (Any would be GREATLY appreciated!) In July, an MPEG-LA spokesman, apparently unperturbed by the idea of anti-trust, announced that their patent-savvy legal types (or are they legal-savvy technical types?) had accepted submissions from 12 companies with patents that WebM infringed.



    Those assertions have never been tested by anybody other than MPEG-LA; certainly not in court. Anybody who follows the Oracle/Google trial has seen very solid-looking patents reduced to rubble. None of the 12 companies have stepped forward publicly; they might be Google allies who would be willing to license their patents for free as part of WebM (as, for example, Phillips apparently did with its part of GSM technology).



    So this is a LOT more complicated. MPEG-LA has no standing to threaten any suits; it hopes merely to license them. Certainly, Google's counsel could, if it cared to, have made guesses about which patents and patent-holders were involved, and how solid the claims are. They seem to be generally indifferent to these types of threats, but on the other hand, they haven't exactly forced others' hands by taking h.264 away.
  • suddenly newtonsuddenly newton Posts: 13,052member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Knocks View Post


    I understand when you [insult removed] bash Google. You need someone to hate, that's just how you are.



    But why in hell would you hate on Mozilla, too? Do the volunteers who freed the web from the dominance of IE deserve your spiteful articles? Give me a fucking break.



    Not sure if serious...
  • adonissmuadonissmu Posts: 1,723member
    I fluctuate between Safari and Chrome but mostly end up using Safari because it "feels/Is" faster to me.



    Safari is the #1 browser where I work but Chrome and FF aren't far behind each with about 17% a piece.
Sign In or Register to comment.