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



  • Reply 61 of 65
    ijoynerijoyner Posts: 135member
    The real war should not be on a technology. Luckily it seems the best technology has won.

    The real war should be on royalties and licensing fees on a technology that has become all pervasive.
  • Reply 62 of 65
    Originally Posted by sunilraman View Post

    Yeah, it's just common sense. If Apple had standardised on QuickTime [yes, it's a container, not a format etc] say, and Google H.264, then Google would have "won".

    WebM from Google was just an a-hole move and well, you reapeth what you soweth.

    Quite conveniently, the QuickTime format was chosen to be adopted, largely unmodified, as the basis of the MPEG-4 Part 12 base media container. From that starting point, the MP4 file format, the 3GP file format, and many others, were derived.

    Therefore, it is fairly safe to say that the vast majority of industry-standard computer-file implementations of the H.264 video codec are, in fact, essentially encapsulated within the QuickTime container format.
  • Reply 63 of 65



    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

    This is my sole reply to Mozilla for something that was obvious from day one.


    Odd. I watched it on YouTube using HTML5 and WebM. I don't think you achieved what you wanted to achieve.

  • Reply 64 of 65



    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

    It's two later so let me ask John B.'s question again here: Remind me what devices have VP8/WebM hardware decoders built-in?


    These ones:


  • Reply 65 of 65



    Originally Posted by d-range View Post

    There is nothing 'legally grey' about the H264 codecs you have on Linux. It's an open standard that anyone can implement, it is free for non-commercial use, and it will stay this way until after the patents expire.


    No it isn't. If and when Mozilla adds H.264 decoder support they'll be paying millions of dollars a year just to support their Linux users. H.264 decoders must pay a licencing fee. H.264 encoders must pay a licencing fee. Web videos that carry a charge for access also must pay a licencing fee for the act of viewing the video (yes, the licencing really is that absurd). The licence costs also vary according what the end user is permitted to do with H.264 video created with a particular device. If you have a video camera with H.264, read the H.264 end user licence that came with it sometime. It's quite restrictive.


    You really should at least read the H.264 licencing summary from the MPEG-LA:


    Here's the relevant part as far as software encoders and decoders are concerned: "For (a) (1) branded encoder and decoder products sold both to End Users and on an OEM basis for incorporation into personal computers but not part of a personal computer operating system (a decoder, encoder, or product consisting of one decoder and one encoder = “unit”), royalties (beginning January 1, 2005) per Legal Entity are 0 - 100,000 units per year = no royalty (this threshold is available to one Legal Entity in an affiliated group); US $0.20 per unit after first 100,000 units each year; above 5 million units per year, royalty = US $0.10 per unit. The maximum annual royalty (“cap”) for an Enterprise (commonly controlled Legal Entities) is $3.5 million per year 2005-2006, $4.25 million per year 2007-08, $5 million per year 2009-10, and $6.5 million per year in 2011-15."


    H.264 licencing is messy and complicated. To describe it as "free for non-commercial use" is to deeply misconstrue and misunderstand the licencing realties.

Sign In or Register to comment.