Google reaffirms intent to derail HTML5 H.264 video with WebM browser plugins

1101113151625

Comments

  • insikeinsike Posts: 188member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by EgoAleSum View Post


    The W3C did NOT even define HTML5!



    The W3C is the standards body which publishes the HTML5 standard.



    Quote:

    If we had followed the W3C from the beginning, now we would not be discussing about this...



    Actually, it was W3C member Opera which started HTML5 in the first place. They always wanted to standardize it through the W3C, but needed support from other W3C members to do so.
  • dick applebaumdick applebaum Posts: 11,562member, moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


    Nothing prevents them from doing this, but the whole point of having video directly supported in HTML was so browsers were not dependent on plugins. The only open standard that is viable for that, however, is H.264. WebM isn't open and it isn't a standard.



    I understand all that!



    But if Google wants to play their silly game using WebM as a decoy for Flash -- why not provide an alternative decoy? That way h.264 remains viable to every browser on every OS regardless of how Google and Adobe play with each other.
  • anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,558member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by insike View Post


    H264 is not an open standard. Read the W3C Patent Policy. Open standards are required to be royalty-free. Even Microsoft agrees with this definition.



    And even if you disagree, it still violates the W3C Patent Policy whether you call it "open" or not. So it's not compatible with an open web.



    H.264 is an open standard, and there are no W3C standards on codecs, nor will there be, so your argument is meaningless. WebM is not open nor is it a standard, it's completely controlled by one company, Google, so there's no difference in that regard between WebM and Flash.
  • insikeinsike Posts: 188member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by EgoAleSum View Post


    That's not what I meant.

    HTML5, referring to the *full* standard (<video> and <audio>, but also Geolocation, Drag and Drop, WebSockets, etc etc etc) was not defined by W3C!



    It is now.



    Quote:

    If you read the story of HTML5 you see that the original draft was proposed by "WHATWG", a group formed by Apple, Mozilla and Opera.



    If you read the full story of HTML5, it was started by Opera, and they always wanted it to be standardized through the W3C. They gathered support from Mozilla, Apple and Google, and asked the W3C to standardize it.



    The W3C agreed.
  • insikeinsike Posts: 188member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by z3r0 View Post


    How does dropping H264 help with standardizing video on the web?



    Because it deals a blow to a closed standard which is incompatible with an open web.



    Quote:

    This another direct attack by Google at Apple. First they invade Apple's space with Android and now this. Apple should send out a clear message and buy Yahoo!



    Oh no! Google is competing with Apple! How terrible! Google must die! Everything Google does is evil because they are competing with Apple!
  • noirdesirnoirdesir Posts: 1,026member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by EgoAleSum View Post


    I know what a joint venture is... But I don't understand what this has to do with my post...

    I was telling an user that I don't think a 100% free and open video format may ever be a good solution!



    You quoted my post in which I described the business model of the MPEG LA (without naming it) and said that my proposal (and thus the one of the MPEG LA) will not work because it is not 'commercial enough'.



    My point was that if you start to describe the business model of the MGEG LA in general terms (without mentioning names) people will not criticise it for being too closed or too commercial. You even went beyond my expectations and criticised the MGEG LA's model as being too open and too non-commercial.
  • hahahaha321hahahaha321 Posts: 83member
    This article proves how immature the authors of this website are and how brainwashed/obsessive the fanboy commentators are. It's disgusting.



    I'll stick to a more credible website like MacRumors.
  • jensonbjensonb Posts: 508member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by insike View Post


    H264 is not an open standard. Read the W3C Patent Policy. Open standards are required to be royalty-free. Even Microsoft agrees with this definition.



    And even if you disagree, it still violates the W3C Patent Policy whether you call it "open" or not. So it's not compatible with an open web.



    What the W3C says on the matter is irrelevant, because H.264 is not listed in W3C's HTML5 specification - neither is webM - because the specification leaves it up to the Browser developers (And by extension, the market) to decide which codec or codecs to use. By your argument, browsers shouldn't support JPEG, MP3, AAC (And I could go on).



    You know what I hate about FOSS Advocates, and the majority of people bleating about "The Open Web"? They're hypocrites. They go on and on endlessly about how if things aren't "free" or "open", they're inherently evil, because they present barriers to this and that. So as a solution, they advocate ripping these things out and using FOSS equivalents, licensed under things like GPL, and enforcing this change on everyone.



    I don't know about you, but my definition of free and open means giving commercial products a chance too. Free and open should mean you're free to choose and access is available to everyone.



    Quite what makes FOSS Advocates think they own the web, or that the vast majority of consumes actually care about their ideological battle with commercial software vendors, is beyond me.
  • anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,558member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by insike View Post


    ... The fact that [Google] are actively using [WebM] themselves just goes to show how sure they are that there are no patent violations. ...



    It doesn't show anything of the kind. Google is notorious for stealing the intellectual property of others -- just look at the wholesale copyright infringement that is the Google Books Program. They just think they are big enough and have enough lawyers to get away with it. They were wrong about that with Android, and they will be wrong in regard to WebM.
  • anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,558member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by HahaHaha321 View Post


    This article proves how immature the authors of this website are and how brainwashed/obsessive the fanboy commentators are. It's disgusting.



    I'll stick to a more credible website like MacRumors.



    As long as that's ok with your employer, we're fine with it.
  • insikeinsike Posts: 188member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    As of today, EVERY browser can play h.264.



    Correction: Every browser can use plugins like Flash, and Flash might use h264 or some other codec, but the browser still doesn't support those codecs. Basically, the codec used by Flash is irrelevant to the browser.



    Quote:

    Only a small percentage can play WebM. Even when the next version of Chrome comes out, less than 10% of the browsers in use will play WebM while 90% (all but Chrome) will play H.264 natively.



    Huh?



    Chrome, Firefox and Opera will not play h264. That's nearly 50% global market share (in Europe, Firefox is the top browser).



    When Firefox 4 is released, most Firefox users will start using it, which means that in addition to the 10-15% market share of WebM-supporting Chrome versions, WebM-supporting Firefox versions will add to that, so that it adds up, to nearly 50% over a few months. And Chrome is growing extremely fast.



    On the other hand, Safari has a mere 5% share of the market. And as history shows, uptake of new IE versions is extremely slow, so h264 supporting browsers will be lucky if their collective market share is more than 10% at the end of 2011.



    40-50% for WebM vs. 5-10% for h264.



    Quote:

    Just how in the world does that suggest that WebM has a huge lead?



    Because a bigger part of the user base of the browsers that support WebM are updated to the latest versions, while the browsers with h264 support have a problem with low market share, and extremely slow migration from older versions to new versions.



    Add to this the fact that all you need to do on Windows and Mac is to install the WebM codec on the system, and IE9 and Safari will suddenly support it. As far as I know. On the other hand, Chrome, Firefox and Opera are apparently not going to allow h264 to be used at all.



    Quote:

    And that doesn't even get into the quality and performance issues where WebM is severely lacking.



    Actually, compared to h264 baseline, which is what everyone is using, WebM isn't far behind. And quality doesn't really matter here.
  • noirdesirnoirdesir Posts: 1,026member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by insike View Post


    Because it deals a blow to a closed standard which is incompatible with an open web.



    Free does not equal open, and

    having a price tag does not equal closed.



    Flash is free (for browser vendors and end-users) but is it open?

    You can open-source software but still attach patents to it.
  • hahahaha321hahahaha321 Posts: 83member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


    As long as that's ok with your employer, we're fine with it.



    I really hope you're being sarcastic. Because if you're actually serious about believing that, there's something seriously wrong here.
  • anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,558member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by insike View Post


    Because it deals a blow to a closed standard which is incompatible with an open web. ...



    To the contrary, This action by Google props up a proprietary plugin, Flash, and seeks to eventually replace it with another proprietary technology that isn't open or standard. The only open standard in the game, compatible with an open web, is H.264, WebM is an impostor.
  • insikeinsike Posts: 188member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Jensonb View Post


    What the W3C says on the matter is irrelevant, because H.264 is not listed in W3C's HTML5 specification - neither is webM - because the specification leaves it up to the Browser developers (And by extension, the market) to decide which codec or codecs to use. By your argument, browsers shouldn't support JPEG, MP3, AAC (And I could go on).



    No, what the W3C has to say is extremely important, because their patent policy defines what an open web standard should look like. It doesn't matter that the specification allows for any codec. The point is whether h264 can count as an open standard in the context of the web, which it clearly cant.



    Quote:

    You know what I hate about FOSS Advocates, and the majority of people bleating about "The Open Web"? They're hypocrites. They go on and on endlessly about how if things aren't "free" or "open", they're inherently evil, because they present barriers to this and that. So as a solution, they advocate ripping these things out and using FOSS equivalents, licensed under things like GPL, and enforcing this change on everyone.



    I'm not a FOSS advocate, but I'm definitely an open web advocate. Aren't you? Do you not thing that universal access to the web should be a basic right? That access to the web is fundamental in our society, because so many businesses and services rely on it?



    Of course we should enforce an open web. Anything else would be utterly insane.



    Quote:

    I don't know about you, but my definition of free and open means giving commercial products a chance too. Free and open should mean you're free to choose and access is available to everyone.



    Standards are standards. Open standards are a necessity for universal access to everyone.



    Quote:

    Quite what makes FOSS Advocates think they own the web, or that the vast majority of consumes actually care about their ideological battle with commercial software vendors, is beyond me.



    It's the openness that made the web possible and successful in the first place.



    You are just fighting straw men. FOSS boogiemen everywhere. You sound desperate.
  • anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,558member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by HahaHaha321 View Post


    I really hope you're being sarcastic. Because if you're actually serious about believing that, there's something seriously wrong here.



    I thought you were leaving?
  • insikeinsike Posts: 188member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


    The W3C hasn't specified any codec standards, nor are they likely to, so your entire argument on that basis is moot. H.264 is an open standard.



    No, h264 is not an open standard. Even Microsoft agrees that an open standard must be royalty-free.



    Quote:

    WebM isn't any kind of standard, and it's particularly not an open standard. WebM is controlled by a single company, Google



    WebM is not a standard, but it's open, and a separate open-source project. Google is only one of several sponsors. But the important part is that Google gave everyone an eternal, irrevocable free license to use WebM. That means that WebM can be standardized and become an open standard.



    Quote:

    The bottom line is that Google loses the whole argument about open standards because WebM isn't any kind of standard



    It doesn't have to be. Like HTML5 before it, it can be submitted to the W3C or other standards bodies after the basic work has been done.



    Quote:

    The thing I'm finding the most disturbing about this entire scenario is discovering just how completely uncritical the thought of so many open source advocates.



    And what about the Apple fanboys who bash Google just because they fear the competition for Apple?



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


    It doesn't show anything of the kind. Google is notorious for stealing the intellectual property of others -- just look at the wholesale copyright infringement that is the Google Books Program. They just think they are big enough and have enough lawyers to get away with it. They were wrong about that with Android, and they will be wrong in regard to WebM.



    It most certainly does show that. If Google violates any patents, any patent owner will obviously go after them for the big bucks. There have been a lot of claims about WebM violating patents, but not a single actual case. Put up or shut up.
  • anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,558member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by insike View Post


    No, what the W3C has to say is extremely important, because their patent policy defines what an open web standard should look like. It doesn't matter that the specification allows for any codec. The point is whether h264 can count as an open standard in the context of the web, which it clearly cant. ...



    According to your argument, neither Flash (which Google continues to strongly support, nor WebM can be part of an "open web" either. Neither is a standard nor open, both are controlled by single companies. So, following your logic, The W3C has no option of endorsing anything, making the entire line of reasoning meaningless.
  • insikeinsike Posts: 188member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


    To the contrary, This action by Google props up a proprietary plugin, Flash, and seeks to eventually replace it with another proprietary technology that isn't open or standard.



    WebM is not proprietary. Google has given out an unlimited and irrevocable free license for it.



    Flash is not being propped up. It's just used as a way to continue to support video on the web. And it is a separate plugin, which the HTML spec explicitly allows for. So plugins, even proprietary ones, do not mean a closed web.



    Quote:

    The only open standard in the game, compatible with an open web, is H.264, WebM is an impostor.



    False. Did you look up the W3C patent policy yet?



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


    According to your argument, neither Flash (which Google continues to strongly support, nor WebM can be part of an "open web" either. Neither is a standard nor open, both are controlled by single companies. So, following your logic, The W3C has no option of endorsing anything, making the entire line of reasoning meaningless.



    I never claimed that Flash is open. Flash is a plugin, while this is a discussion about native video support in web browsers. Supporting plugins is perfectly fine according to the HTML specification. And it's a way for Chrome to support just about all video sites on the entire web while they work on transitioning everyone towards native video using WebM.



    The W3C publishes open standards. They have shown that open standards are vital for an open web.
  • insikeinsike Posts: 188member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


    H.264 is an open standard, and there are no W3C standards on codecs, nor will there be, so your argument is meaningless. WebM is not open nor is it a standard, it's completely controlled by one company, Google, so there's no difference in that regard between WebM and Flash.



    H264 is not an open standard. Once again, stop making this false assertion, and educate yourself by reading the W3C patent policy.



    Just because there is no standard video codec doesn't mean you get to choose some random closed codec and call it open.



    WebM is open. It's freely available. No fees. Google has given away any right to collect fees or restrict people from using it. Just like W3C members have to do when an upcoming standard might infringe on their patents. If they do, they have to let the W3C know that the standard will infringe on a patent, and either allow for royalty-free use, or raise an official patent claim, which will then be investigated by the W3C.



    And it just so happens that Apple has raised at least two patent objections against the upcoming W3C Widgets standard. Apple refused to allow royalty-free use, so either the W3C had to change the standard, or they would have to spend countless months investigating the patent claims from Apple. Which they did. They concluded that Apple's patent claims against the upcoming W3C Widgets standard were bogus.
Sign In or Register to comment.