Ogg Theora, H.264 and the HTML 5 Browser Squabble - Page 3

Opera is Norwegian. Norway is not a member of EU.

This is an excellent article - it really does reinforce my dislike for Microsoft and the sharp practices they have employed over the last 20 years or so. Having worked in IT for the last 20 years I at last can see a glimmer of hope that the status quo might be changing and we can say goodbye to the nightmare that has been Windows as the dominant force in IT.

Its really an exciting time.

Welcome to the world of Prince McLean.

The truth is Apple does it their way cause the like it that way, and they like control. I thought we've been over this before?

Leave the codec unspecified, as with the IMG tag. This will enable competition and encourage continued innovation. If they fix on one format only, then vendors will simply implement that and be done with it, and no pressure on them to keep innovating.

Two things can happen:
1) Either Theora or H.264 become the official standard. Regardless of which is chosen, Mozilla and Opera implement only Theora, Google both and Apple only H.264 and Microsoft none
2) Nothing is set in the standard, and the same happens as above
In other words, it will not matter what is in the standard or whether something is in the standard at all.

Websites will either have only Flash or only H.264 or only Theora or combinations of these three. Few will go with Theora only. Flash-only sites will require a plugin everywhere (which will suck everywhere but in IE and Windows). H.264-only sites will require a plugin with Mozilla and Linux and IE. Sites that want to be nice to their visitors will have at least two versions.

Maybe doing nothing is the best, but I think if the standard contained the clause it should be either Theora or h.264 that would standardize things a little bit.

Don't forget: all the webmasters may own a Mac, but they are Linux-faithful. Stallman will start another burn-all-GIFS campaign, and we'll be deadlocked for another 5-10 years.

So why doesn't the HTML 5 standard simply state that browsers must support either H264 or Theora (or both) and encourage web sites to serve both? That way everybody (other than maybe Microsoft and Adobe) is happy. Chrome plays both, Safari users can install XiphQT. If web sites decide they can't be bothered to support Firefox and Opera's market share they'll drop Theora. Conversely, if the H264 licensing authority imposes prohibitive terms come 2011 or 2013 or whenever, then sites can drop H264. In the meantime, users get maximum compatibility.

Because they're championing AAC, which is better than either?

They can already do that. Sites can put in both video tags and by using the User Agent or other means call H.264 for WebKit, Theora for Gecko or even Flash for Trident. The problem isnt the multiple options because we do have PNG, JPEG, GIF, etc, the problem with requiring sites encode in multiple formats. It looks that many will do just that, but that is workaround, not a solution.

This is the most important point of the article. If browsers support a generalized video/audio OS infrastructure, then there is no longer a need to support anything directly in the browser.

For instance, every Windows box supports a boatload of audio and video codecs via the standard multimedia APIs (which Media Player wraps around.) And if anything is missing, new codecs can be installed into the OS, where all apps can see and use them.

Similarly, every Mac has a boatload of codecs via its multimedia APIs (which tie to the underlying Quicktime infrastructure.) Similarly, new codecs can be added to the OS, and applications will then be able to use them.

I don't know what the deal is with Linux, but if there isn't a similar multimedia architecture, somebody really should develop one.

With a browser designed to use OS-standard multimedia APIs, the whole argument becomes moot. Firefox no longer has to pay license fees for its codecs, it will just use what the OS provides.

And, of course, this in no way removes the possibility of using a plugin to provide something that is otherwise unavailable - and this doesn't break use of <video>. Just like third party Java plugins can tap the <applet> tag and not need to use <embed>, so can audio and video plugins.

Of course, but if someone tries attacking H.264, they also attack some of the biggest players in the business, like Sony and Disney (since H.264 is what Blu-Ray uses.)

Theora doesn't have any such big-muscled supporters.

Not exactly the same.

A video-specific plugin that provides a codec for a generalized player is easier to implement and use than an <embed> object that provides the entire player. The video-plugin can be ignored by content providers - they just provide content in a given format and let the browser decide which plugin to use (or to use none, if it's supported internally). Using <embeds>, the content provider usually needs to know all kinds of ugly details about the player and the plugin that provides it.

It also means the user doesn't have to learn several different user interfaces for the videos, since the plugin only has to provide the codec, not the entire player.

That's really amusing, since Blu-Ray uses H.264 for its content.

And BD hardly won "overnight". It was a long struggle, backed (both politically and financially) by some very large mega-corporations.

Bingo! Exactly like how it is with <img> tags. Today, browsers have support for PNG, but dropped XPM (which was in some of the oldest browsers.) This happens based on what people want/need, without fanfare and without most people even noticing.

HTML 5's <video> and <audio> tags sets up the much-needed infrastructure for this to happen, but we really don't want it to go beyond that.

Where would the web be if the HTML standards mandated all images be in XPM format, simply because it was open and popular at the time of the first browsers? Similarly, we don't want it to mandate any audio or video formats - what we're using today will certainly be obsoleted by other formats in the future, and browser developers shouldn't be forced to violate standards in order to support them.

I hope this means Flash dies! Maybe then I could uninstall all Adobe software from my computer...

Good article.

It begs the question, why there is no effort to get a 'round table' discussion between all the concerned parties to decide on the easiest and best way provide video for the end user.

First lets reduce Flashs dominance. Unless there a secure way to embed dynamic adverts, keep the average person from figuring out how to DL the video I dont see most sites moving to any HTML5 for their video streaming. Right now it looks the best chance to shake Adobes Flash dominance is MS Silverlight.



That is whats happened here. We have different groups with different legitimate reasons for making different choices. Because of the internet and the nature of this particular subject we dont the typical symposium to discuss the issue thoroughly.

I agree this is the most logical and most likely compromise. This compromise will work fine on desktops and notebooks. But it will not work for mobile devices. Because of this h.264 will become the dominant standard.

Mozilla and Xiph will not want this type of compromise because mobile devices are the fastest growing internet devices. Mozilla has no influence on mobile devices and none can play Theora. For the hundreds of millions of mobile devices h.264 is the only option. So why should most websites bother with Theora at all.

Nokia is in the H.264 camp and it appears that Mozilla needs Nokia in order to get mobile Firefox (Fennec) onto the platform. Could they include a default plugin for Nokia phones running Fennec so that HTML 5 video tags will play H.264 natively?

I don't even see the point of arguing one way or the other. The standard shouldn't be pushing any one particular video codec/format and both should be supported by default. That, and Ogg Theora really is the terrible choice of the two, even though such a statement is deeply offensive to the open source community. W3C needs to stick to defining how we present the video, not what video we present...

I agree but for a different reason. It'll bring the freetard brigade here en masse to defend ogg theora.

Because it's okay to force standards on others as long as it's "free".

<video> is just fine given that <img> has been just fine.

The need to specify a single codec is not required unless you have some political axe to grind. Certainly not to force theora to be the one true codec in HTML 5 when h.264 finally has a bit of momentum going. If you don't want h.264 for licensing reasons, that's fine. Then the standard, as currently written, should be just fine for Mozilla as it is for Apple.

All are free to implement the codecs they wish natively and it'll end up being two for Chrome and one each for Apple, Mozilla and Opera.

That seems more "open" than a single mandated codec because the market will decide which the dominant codec will be.

That would be Google.

(...and I agree with JavaCowboy's post)

1. The article said, "Mozilla's entire Firefox business model revolves around Google paying it around $50 million a year to direct search queries its way." I might ask, whose search do we see in the Safari toolbar?

2. In this whole affair, is not Apple's firm stand, refusing to negotiate on ANY terms, as obstructionist as Microsoft?

Please oh please read the OTHER specs of HTML5. It, along with CSS3, offers huge performance benefits, website accessibility gains, and other good, for website visitors (and might I add, for website developers, of which I am one - admitted conflict of interest). To have the browser manufacturers disagree and delay HTML5 implementation well into the teens or twentys is a true heartbreak.

Wise words - couldn't agree more. I read the whole thing but constantly felt like I wasn't getting the "other half" of the story, despite it being a blinking long article. But, I must say, I do not prefer H.264. For relatively small video files, sure, but I've found that when you get into really high quality, really high GB sizes (like 7+, which demand lots of crunching) for backups of Bluray movies, the performance of H.264 leaves more to be desired. I've been using the VC-1 codec (by that evil Microsoft, oh no!) and it really is fantastic and plays without any hitches on players that support it. For all those who are demanding that there be "one standard to rule them all" how does that foster innovation? Free markets and competition best foster free-flowing ideas and innovation, not some dictatorial consortium of companies or standards group. I need only to point to VESA and say look how long its taken them to develop, implement, and market the successor to DVI, which is DisplayPort, and it really hasn't taken off by anyone's standards. By VESA's own laggard pace, its allowed (to its own detriment as well as consumers') HDMI to spill over into the computer industry, where it just does not belong. Companies or groups or individuals will always have competing standards, that's just the way it is, and if any one of those thinks it can benefit from pushing its own standard, it will do so. Apple is no different, and even though it touts various open-source standards, open-source in and of itself is Apple's standard. AAC was primarily, and continues to be, trumpeted by Apple through iTunes (because of which it might as well be referred to as the "Apple Audio Codec"). The primary proliferate of H.264 could very well become Apple as well (their persuasion of Google/YouTube is one such example); it remains to be seen. Apple has leveraged and wielded these open-sources as weapons for competitive gain, which makes it no better than advocates of closed-source alternative standards.

My $.02

You mean people like Andressen and Bina that stole U of Illinios IP, started Netscape, closed the source, and had to do a multi-million out of court settlement?

Yah, okay.

The point of dropping codec requirements is to not delay HTML5 and have a spec that everyone is willing to implement. <video> remains.

Edit: this is slightly off-topic since the article is about a standard codec for HTML5's <video> tag


This post clearly outs Ogg as having no use, while H264 is technically superior in almost every way (especially hardware acceleration as mentioned), While I do agree H264 is superior this does not mean Ogg is useless.

What's the hurt in apple supporting H264 AND Ogg ?

Google was mentioned plenty in this article yet no mention that chrome already supports Ogg Theora!!
Google engineers might not want to run the youtube backend using it, but at least they support it.

Saying Microsoft is a standards-demon is an understatement, but Apple's track record does not exactly scream rainbow unicorns either.


I for one am thankfull safari does not have a huge market share, making the only browsers so far that will not support Ogg Theora Internet exploder and Safari.
And a gigantic number of IE users will most certainly get 3rd-party Ogg Theora support through a plugin should Wikimedia continue its current path in the long run.
(on wikipedia: want to see this video? click here to install the Ogg Theora plugin!)

Regardless of how this turns out, there most likely will be a non-royalty video codec supported in the long run simply because small developers/open source have a need for it. Be it Ogg Theora or something else.

So in the end, I'm not worried

What content authoring tools does one use to produce Theora files?

How is that relevant? The point is that Mozilla will have zero business the day Google decides that Chrome doesn't need a Firefox stepbrother. If Google pulled out of Safari, the browser would still be supported by Apple's billions of hardware sales.


Had you considered the points raised, you'd realize that Apple shouldn't "negotiate" the use of an obsolete codec that is incompatible with the mobile future of the web. Using a word like "obstructionist" only seeks to inflame emotions. There is no logical, technical reason for designating Ogg Theora as the official codec of HTML 5. All it can possibly do is derail HTML 5 and open the door for Silverlight to assume to role of Flash in keeping video completely closed.


The only people worried about HTML 5 not being here for another ten years are Microsoft Silverlight flacks and those they have convinced with their rhetoric about how browsers won't support HTML 5 until 2020 despite the fact that modern (non-IE) browsers already support much of the standard.

This.

It seems to me every other argument fades to insignificance, given the installed user base using .264 hardware acceleration. I mean, really, is there any point in discussing it further?

Mobile video is the future of online video, if not its present. H264 efficiency is being built into every mobile device on the planet. Hence, H264 is the future of online video, regardless of what putative standards are adopted.

Content providers can put up all the Ogg Theora material they want, when it chokes on your mobile you'll go elsewhere. And by "you" I mean "everybody."

http://9to5mac.com/vlc-video-lan-1

STFU, Mozilla & Opera. Use the libs that VLC is using and quit whining.

NO video codec should be "blessed" or deemed "official" by W3C, the same way that no image format is.

I suppose "obstructionist" is more inflamatory than "flacks" and "rhetoric", so excuse me, I'm sure. And Apple's survival on hardware, without Google's investment in Safari software, is assured. I'm sure most modern browsers support the semantic advances of html5 (<header>, <article>, <aside>, <footer>, <h>, etc.) with which you are so obviously familiar. So I withdraw my hasty conclusions!

Someone change a number, ring Sky News!!!

Of course It's only reason for being is open web standards.
Mozilla's entire Firefox business model revolves around Google paying it around $50 million a year to direct search queries its way.

Apple had hardware accelerated H.264 in their smartphones and desktop. They don't have that in Ogg and since Apple helped craft H.264/MPEG4 with QuickTime, what benefit does Apple receive from the FOSS community for pushing that dated spec?

You're correct. With the W3 ending XHTML 2 development to focus on HTML 5 just announced today it's quite clear that they will make sure there is no endorsed VIDEO or IMG format.

"No offense but the article is biased - at best. Apple's push is completely driven by the iTunes eco-system, it's business driven, Apple is a business, don't start telling us they became philanthropic overnight! The debate is not Ogg vs h264 or anything else. The debate is about embracing an open standard so that content can be displayed seamlessly, on any device. Ogg may not be the best answer, but Apple's position is definitely one of the worst and one of the most biased, whether you like it or not!"

Thanks!

H.264 is an open standard, its not owned by Apple, its not owned by anyone. The difference is that you have to pay a license for its use, while Theora doesn't. The reason Apple is supporting it is because they genuinely believe it is the best codec. What do you feel is wrong that?

A quote from an article I saw: "100x more effort is being put into improving h.264 than will ever be put into OGG Theora."

One thing in favor of Ogg Theora: its nice sounding name.

Haha!!

It's like calling your child Philomena Umbragade.

It's thousands of kilometres away but I'm positive that I can hear Adobe laughing their asses off over this decision. Gee, I can already see the tough decisions content providers will have to make: a) Drop Flash for <video> and automatically alienate hundreds of million of users and possibly, pay for extra storage space to accommodate for various video formats and suffer from extra CPU cycles for various cross encoding procedures or b) keep Flash and thus retain a 99 percent market penetration without any OS or browser dependencies. Really, I can see their heads smoking.

Growth means nothing without actual numbers. If my mobile users base increases from one to two persons I have a growth of 100 percent. Compare that to the growth of 50 percent when the desktop user base increases from one billion to one and a half. This example is purposefully far-fetched as to demonstrate the difficulties with such claims.

http://tinyurl.com/n8xww2

There are 40M+ iPhones/iPod Touches. 139M smartphones were sold in 2008. 36M smartphones sold in Q1 2009. 3.9M iPhones in Q1 2009.

Yes, lets pick a particularly stupid example when you can simply google for real numbers. There are zero difficulties in determining the growth rate of smartphones. Smart phones sales up 12.7% despite an 8% dip in total phone sales.

That's completely ignoring the PMP market and PS/DS handheld game markets with video.