Google drops support for H.264 video in Chrome to push WebM - Page 7

I see this thread has gotten seriously out of control since I last visited it.

I wanted to share some info I found that might be relevant to the video codec topic (not sure what what you guys are discussing at this point). Really a good read IMO.

http://diveintohtml5.org/video.html

Yes, a little bit.

But at that point WebM was a mere curiosity being played with by Mozilla for implementing support for it and a test implementation in Chrome. So MPEG-LA threw up a little FUD because they weren't worried and knew the FUD was really directed to the ears of the commercial content creators. Maybe they thought that would be enough to get Google to back off since Google had no financial stake in the fight to that point.

Now, Google brings itself and it's paid proxy, Mozilla, into the fore again. There's no reason to go after Mozilla, they are just a bunch of coders with a common personal mission. They aren't going to shift the market one way or the other on their own as much as they try.

But Google suddenly made noises that could someday be seen as possible harming MPEG-LA member pocketbooks. Now that little bit of early FUD could turn into a real quick lawsuit because I doubt Google would risk losing face by backing off if MPEG-LA even quietly walked in with a "you stole our code line-for-line case". The play was all-in and they either follow all the way through, even in a case they know they could lose, intentionally playing the Open Source Martyr (like they are playing with Oracle pre-court over Android right now), or they lose HUGE partner credibility. Nobody, including the Android crowd could ever trust they will stick with a partner project if a hint of Patent case comes up should Google cut and run in either of those 2 situations.

WebM and Chrome is really a pretty small issue in isolation, it isn't big until you look at what the future precedent could be and it's the precedent and fallout everyone is talking about, not Chrome itself. It would be interesting to know if P&B really realize the stakes their company was just brought into, or if it was a division level call and now the Company hand is accidentally forced. Perception is everything in partnerships and they set some pretty tough perceptual requirements here.

Seeing as how PNG is lossless and the transform isn't likely to be an earth shattering event as you put it...

Just so you know, along with being #2 in the US, Mozilla has the most market share of Europe, having just passed IE with ~38% vs ~37%.

Mean much compared to mobile devices? Maybe not.

well unless a lawsuit stops webm prepare to install the codecs on your safari and ie browser. so you guys stick with your DC and the rest of the world will go with AC.
all that matters is the legality of it all. otherwise rest in peace h.264
have a banana, chimp.

The link is essentially correct as far as I can see, but it does leave out the rub of the problem when discussing the video codecs. Theora and WebM are only non-encumbered because the owning companies granted their patents to the standard. Theora was never tested in a case because it has been fringe even though it is the #3 codec. That say's how much fall off there is in commercial codec use after H.264.

WebM isn't in jeopardy from Google patents, it is in jeopardy from MPEG-LA patents pertaining to H.264. MPEG-LA members intimated so last year after they read the WebM documentation and got open access to the code which was pasted inside. It wouldn't be too difficult to match up those implementations against H.264 equations and algorithms for someone with H.264 experience (if there is an actual infringement).

The verbiage in the VP8 section is quite compelling, but completely misses the point. A point that only the courts can rule on. Google could see an entire VP8 video patent folio evaporate due to covered prior art. Just think how hard a case Google would have over VP8 if MPEG-LA went and got a PO box in east Texas. What, an 80% or so success rate for plaintiffs?

Up until a patent case is filed the problem does solidly qualify as FUD, but it's no FUD vapor like IBM and MS used to so effectively wield in their partner marketing. It's sticky-gooey FUD that makes you wonder if there is a real problem here.

Read this fud

Well, I wasn't trying to support any legal argument. The article is rather long but from the perspective of whether content developers should be concerned about Google removing support for H.264, I would suggest reviewing the techniques presented for multiple browser support for your video as well as all of the minor incompatibilities addressed in the actual coding of the web page, video encode settings, etc.

One interesting point that was raised is that Flash actually has the ability to support higher profiles of H.264 and MP4 audio than does any of the other native browser implementation such as Safari or Mobile Safari which only support baseline profile. Not saying Flash is better but it is one of the formats that content providers need to continue to support since there is still a huge legacy browser issue with IE which although shrinking is not necessarily an audience that you would want to abandon.

deleted

deleted

I think I already said Apple should go ahead and support WebM in Safari and not make this a pissing contest. WebM is open and overtime it will get improved. Hardware makers and content providers are going to have to deal with it.

When google gives away their search engine algorithm then we can have a discussion about who's anti-competitive. On some level people have to be paid for their work. They can't always be working for free.

The flash stuff is weak since it's clearly not up to the task as it relates to mobile browsers. It's been years and years and Adobe has been saying they are trying to make flash reliable on phones and it's still a very unstable battery hog.

I think Apple should do this as a gesture of goodwill....and to help improve as it relates to PR. Sometimes good PR is also good business.

"How can it be anti-competitive when [Microsoft] gives the [internet browser] away for free?” You may want to learn what anti-competitive means.



Why would they or anything adopt this when there is a better codec that is already adopted and invested?

Gruber sums it up nicely.

•

http://daringfireball.net/2011/01/pr..._vs_idealistic

I thought you were better than that solipsism. Seriously. That was addressed like on page one or two.


Bud, the reason has been beaten to death like 50 times and is now ad nausem.

That article appears to be mostly about Flash.

The end result of all of this is that content developers will simply not get what they wanted, the all inclusive, single format <video> tag and will have to revert to the bad old days of providing several different formats if they want to address the widest available audience. A great example of that was the rather swift availability of H.264 as soon as iPhone came out. Developers will do whatever is necessary to reach the broadest possible audience. So it is really just a web video developer's problem. The general public will be unaffected.

An issue he didnt address was the on-board decoder chips for H.264. Unless Google gets WebM decoding on chips its going to be an even worse competitor to H.264 on mobile devices.

I see what you and others are saying, but as stated I think there are plenty of similarities between what MS and Google are doing.

Well, how about this. To be similar, MS would have to give IE away for free, without having a license to windows or mac, license all code under a BSD license, and all patents if existing to technology like active x would be now open domain.

Take a look at the supporters:

http://www.webmproject.org/about/supporters/

Ok mea culpa on PNG not being lossy, but it is still a format conversion which is a no-no for this type of comparison.

And the rescaling and screenshot use are so egregious that even without a format conversion the "test" is indefensable to any degree.

OK Mr smartypants that can't read very well. I already said it is FUD. High quality FUD. You can't get any riling mileage when I very explicitly brought up your point first.

And since you indicate you want proof that can't happen until a judge or jury makes a ruling, which I also mentioned, I leave you with an article from one of my least favorite authors: http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/2...free-for-long/

All that was High Grade FUD but not a lawsuit threat. I believe it shows that MPEG-LA is willing to actively maneuver, not just sit around.

Also notice the last line of the article: "I’ve asked Google for comment on Horn’s remarks and will update here if I’m given one."

Note there were no updates, and it has been ~8 months. Maybe Google didn't answer because they didn't like what they would have to say???

Well I played both videos natively. Both have issues, but clearly h.264 will compress better no matter what due to b frames. It isn't in vp8 due to it being heavily patented.

Even for the people who download pirated videos, most still are using mpeg4-sp/asp or h.263, better known as divx. If bandwidth and quality are such a big factor, most would switch to h.264. I can't see why, as divx flat out sucks, and avi's are quite archaic.

Then everyone says "It's good enough." I say ipods support it. I get back in reply, "so what?"

How many people moved on from mp3? Still to this day it is more supported than anything. That is good for it but bad for aac. Same can be said (and has been said) for h.264.

As posted earlier, read this link for more info on both sides of the issue, especially my favorite part at the bottom, "No comment."

Mr. Horn is a douche bag. I posted also earlier he is suing apple over patents he acquired by Sony and Nokia. Imagine that, the CEO of MPEG-LA suing a fellow licensee over patents dealing with phones

Right now all the Android phones have H.264 decoding in hardware. One interesting thing is that they won't even play WebM, at least as to what I have read. We will see how fast that changes with respect to Google's latest moves.

OK so??? it's the same deal as WebM, But Theora is too small a fish to deal with. The case wouldn't be worth the legal staff fees because Theora's codecs aren in any significant commercial use.

You're actually making my point for me with stuff like this. Did you even think that through?

Nice list of supporters but I havent heard of any of those HW vendors actually supporting WebM as of yet. I also noticed Imagination, which Apple owns 9.5%, is in the list and Intel is not.

As Im sure you are aware, these lists need to be taken with a grain of salt. Case in point, Apples admission into the Blu-ray Disc Association.

Gingerbread or 2.4 will support it.

true, to date only rockchips has an actual chip ready. Other links posted on ars show qualcomm is next.

But they already did. Its kind of hard to get lower than free forever for non-commerciial use. I have no sympathy for commercial users having to pay fees. That's just part and parcel to buying your tools to build your products.


That fine print was almost assuredly from pre-August when the license granting changed. Not to mention how EULAs almost all go over the line in some places.


That's the truth, we are only a couple years out from the planned release of H.265 and one of the other links sprockkets had say Theora is working on another too.

Well at least theora tried in good faith to make sure they were not stepping on MPEG-LA's patents. MPEG-LA being douche bags about it doesn't help nor win any points in my book.

What point am I supporting for you again?


Even MPEG said h.265 isn't going to be a big improvement, and will take even more processing power. Theora is set in stone just like webm is.

I won't debate on Horn, he's CEO of a group just slightly less litigant than RIAA.

Google has pushed the issue HARD though and it may make for a very rock shake out, or not.

If W3C would just list three or four codecs as necessary to support the video tag this whole brouhaha would go away. But they are a gutless bunch (at least on this issue) afraid to tell one member (or set of members) they can't own everything. So they stand aside hoping the members beat each other into submission but not badly enough that a member company pulls its W3C membership over the issue. All so they can stay "pure" and only deal in tags. I really don't think that's possible or advisable anymore. The web is too big now.

I tend to agree.

The statement of intention by Google (since it is not yet an actual fact) to drop H.264 is either
(a) incredibly stupid -- which is not impossible, but seems unlikely,
(b) power-play-politicking -- to force concessions and control in some future web-control arena,
(c) the result of an executive level snit by their hierarchy for any number of reasons, bad or otherwise.
Or maybe a combination of these.

Mostly, it is a sad development in part because it continues to show how Google (and many other corporations) use 'standards', product development and media to try to enforce their private agenda.

Just a reminder that Google is not a 'for-the-user/consumer' organization.
No surprise there...

I just spent a good hour with an Android tablet today. To be honest, it's a rip off of iOS, more confusing, and basically a way for Google to just do more data mining and sell more ads.

Google is now the new Microsoft for me. As of this year.

How is Android a rip of iOS?

It's a nice read that finally explains properly what HTML5 <video> is.

In my view at the end of the day the above article really dovetails with what Gruber has been saying (http://daringfireball.net/2011/01/pr..._vs_idealistic)

Basically you have to not only encode for H.264 and WebM, but you have to offer the Flash fallback anyway.

So, in the end of the day, most sites may decide to just offer H.264 and use the Flash fallback.

So WebM may not really go anywhere, as Gruber says "GOOGLE’S DECISION TO DROP NATIVE H.264 PLAYBACK FROM CHROME SERVES TO PROP UP FLASH PLAYER"

1. Slide to unlock
2. Flick side to side for different apps
3. Press and hold to rearrange icons
4. Slide up keyboard, slide down keyboard

That's just barely the beginning. Just spend 30 minutes with Android and it is blindingly clear that it is very similar to iOS in many ways. And since iPhone 3G and iPod touch was highly innovative in touchscreen interaction, with Android coming later, I would say iOS was there ahead of Android. From this point of course Android has other innovations, I'd give it that*.

This is something where you either agree or not. No point spending months debating it.

.................................................. ...............

*But these Android innovations seem to just add complexity and confusion. The physical buttons for "Back" "Home" and "Search" seem to conflict with the flow of the touchscreen icons. Plus why are there essentially two sets of app screens? The left-and-right one, and the one where you click the icon with all the squares.

this article is interesting. why? because it states that Apple and Microsoft are a part of MPEG-LA and receive money for the licensing of h.264? how very sweet of them to support h.264 and proclaim google as 'rubbish'. so noble it makes me want to vomit.

http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/We...elf-71647.html

deleted

WebM will not go anywhere, and that's exactly what Google is up to here -- propping up Flash -- thus the complete and utter hypocrisy of their public statements on "openness". Obviously, some of the posters in this thread are Google shills here to defend them, but some of them probably are honestly deluded open source advocates who just have no understanding of the real world and how Google is playing them, and will eventually burn them too when the time comes. This is no different than the way certain moneyed interests play certain groups for political purposes, and, apparently, just as easy to do.

so posters are either 'google shills' or 'deluded' unless they are siding with apple and the h.264?

so google is out to make more money and ads are the way they do it. flash does about 94% of ads so of course they like flash. apple apparently likes h.264 because they make lots of money off of google and others to license it. wow. but yet 'google' are the bad guys.
anyone who thinks apple is looking out for 'them' is just brainwashed. apple is out for filling its own coffers just like every other business. the difference is you have somehow convinced yourself that apple is more 'noble' than the rest. dream on, they ain't.