or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Google drops support for H.264 video in Chrome to push WebM
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Google drops support for H.264 video in Chrome to push WebM - Page 2

post #41 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by sprockkets View Post

How can it be anti-competitive when Google gives the codec away for free? That makes as much sense as apple being anti-competitive for snubbing flash.

You mean like the way they gave IE away for free was not deemed anti-competitive?
post #42 of 335
Sites only need H.264 to reach all users. If a browser can't serve the video directly through HTML, then it could serve it up as a Flash object. (Flash supports H.264 playback).

The fact of the matter is, in a year or two the iOS user base could easily grow to a few hundred million users... This is a huge chunk of prolific users and no one is going to discount them. Content providers and site administrators will continue to deliver whatever iOS supports. Especially if that same content is compatible with other platforms.
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
post #43 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by sprockkets View Post

How can it be anti-competitive when Google gives the codec away for free? That makes as much sense as apple being anti-competitive for snubbing flash.

Probably somewhat along the lines that giving away Internet Explorer for free was anti-competitive when Microsoft did it to kill competitors.

Google currently does not have the same market power that Microsoft wielded for a long time. And there are alternatives to Chrome, obviously. But suppose Google stops h.264 on YouTube next. There, they wield near monopoly power and the situation looks like Microsoft of the past. Apple is very strong in smartphones, but they do not wield monopoly power either, far from it.

What really stinks is that Google supports Flash (that has h.264 but is also a WebM partner) while snubbing h.264 because it is not open. Flash is? Google hardly innovates (WebM is not better than h.264 for instance and there is a long list of failed initiatives) but currently fights hard not to be out-inovated. At least in spirit that is not the kind of competitive behaviour one would like.

Google has only one cash cow and has so far not been able to innovate in a commercially successful way in another area. Even Android, which is successful, is just me-too that intends to keep Google's ad-selling machine protected.

Google seems to be run by beancounters, not by innovators.
post #44 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by penchanted View Post

You mean like the way they gave IE away for free was not deemed anti-competitive?

The crime was bundling IE with win98, not giving it away for free. Besides, know of anyone else who was allowed to implement active x?
post #45 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by sprockkets View Post

How can it be anti-competitive when Google gives the codec away for free? That makes as much sense as apple being anti-competitive for snubbing flash.

The difference is Apple made flash available in the places it had always been. However, on mobile devices they didn't enable flash plug ins because flash couldn't perform on the mobile devices. The Android devices are still trying to get flash to run reasonably on flash. Google is taking away. Flash was never on any of Apple's mobile devices in the first place and it's iOS has never made use of flash....so there is nothing to take away. Additionally what's to stop google from forcing people to pay in the future. That concern isn't going to go away simply because Google's name is attached to it.
post #46 of 335
No more Google Chrome for me!!!
post #47 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjtomlin View Post

Sites only need H.264 to reach all users. If a browser can't serve the video directly through HTML, then it could serve it up as a Flash object. (Flash supports H.264 playback).

Sure, but it is still double the work to export an swf and write conditional code to support two versions, just like we do today. We were all hoping for video to eventually just be one <video> tag, but the FF issues was not resolved anyway, so really nothing has changed.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #48 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by gctwnl View Post

Apple is very strong in smartphones, but they do not wield monopoly power either, far from it.

So then why snub flash? Because it is the past, not open, etc? At least for video we have a replacement; there isn't anything I can use to view homestarrunner.com on an iOS device, is there?

Quote:
What really stinks is that Google supports Flash (that has h.264 but is also a WebM partner) while snubbing h.264 because it is not open. Flash is? Google hardly innovates (WebM is not better than h.264 for instance and there is a long list of failed initiatives) but currently fights hard not to be out-inovated. At least in spirit that is not the kind of competitive behaviour one would like.

Just bundling flash with the browser to make sure it is always up to date was done for security reasons. It is very much apparent that Google wants to go to HTML5.

But if we are to be cynical with google, then that means to be fair, apple doesn't want flash on their iphone because it allows running games, apps and other stuff outside their walled garden, and they do not want that at all.

This thread is relatively civil. You should look on ars and see how bad it is.

http://arstechnica.com/open-source/n...r#comments-bar
post #49 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by gctwnl View Post

Probably somewhat along the lines that giving away Internet Explorer for free was anti-competitive when Microsoft did it to kill competitors.

Google currently does not have the same market power that Microsoft wielded for a long time. And there are alternatives to Chrome, obviously. But suppose Google stops h.264 on YouTube next. There, they wield near monopoly power and the situation looks like Microsoft of the past. Apple is very strong in smartphones, but they do not wield monopoly power either, far from it.

What really stinks is that Google supports Flash (that has h.264 but is also a WebM partner) while snubbing h.264 because it is not open. Flash is? Google hardly innovates (WebM is not better than h.264 for instance and there is a long list of failed initiatives) but currently fights hard not to be out-inovated. At least in spirit that is not the kind of competitive behaviour one would like.

Google has only one cash cow and has so far not been able to innovate in a commercially successful way in another area. Even Android, which is successful, is just me-too that intends to keep Google's ad-selling machine protected.

Google seems to be run by beancounters, not by innovators.

That's a great argument...far and away better logic than I had. I remember when that happened.
post #50 of 335
Another angle.

http://www.0xdeadbeef.com/weblog/201...-with-the-web/
post #51 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by sprockkets View Post

The crime was bundling IE with win98, not giving it away for free. Besides, know of anyone else who was allowed to implement active x?

I stand corrected and this is not really an issue unless Google pulls h.264 from YouTube.
post #52 of 335
Microsoft was accused of being anti-competitive not because they gave IE away for free, but because they forced it on users by "tying" it to Windows. Claiming that Windows would "break" without the browser (which was complete rubbish). They made it un-installable and continuously reset user preferences to use IE as the default browser. That's what gave them an unfair advantage, they leveraged their Windows monopoly in an attempt to kill off competing browsers.

Apple's insistence of not using Flash in the iPhone had nothing to do with competition... in 2007 THERE WAS NO FLASH for the ARM architecture other than Flash Lite, which couldn't play desktop Flash apps anyway. Flash Lite is a subset of Flash several versions old and only served up very simple Flash apps, usually nothing more than ads. People can't get it in their heads that the full blown up to date version of Flash for ARM based mobile devices was only released this past fall. This happened after Apple released its fourth version of iOS. All the stink Adobe and everyone else made about it was nothing more than posturing for the cameras.

What Google is doing is not anti-competitive. They're removing a developmental hurdle which is understandable, but at the same time, pushing a new obstacle in front of their users. However, Google has never been about users, it is about data mining and serving ads.
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
post #53 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by penchanted View Post

I stand corrected and this is not really an issue unless Google pulls h.264 from YouTube.

They probably won't, as it serves their needs and would be negative to them.

Before the iphone they still used the old vp6 or whatever codec for flash.
post #54 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Last August, the MPEG Licensing Authority announced that it would indefinitely extend royalty-free Internet broadcasting licensing of its H.264 video codec to end users, erasing a key advantage of Google's WebM rival and cementing Apple's preferred H.264 as the video format for modern HTML5 video on the web.

MPEGLA extended the royalty free license until the end of the lifetime of the patent portfolio -- there's nothing indefinite about it!

The only thing I can think of here is that Google wants MPEGLA to make all use of H264 on the Web free forever, not just non-commercial use. I think MPEGLA should go ahead and do that, and end all uncertainty about this issue.
post #55 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by sprockkets View Post

So then why snub flash? Because it is the past, not open, etc? At least for video we have a replacement; there isn't anything I can use to view homestarrunner.com on an iOS device, is there?

In your politicking you completely ignore the continuing performance and power issues of flash on mobile devices.
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
post #56 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by NormM View Post

MPEGLA extended the royalty free license until the end of the lifetime of the patent portfolio -- there's nothing indefinite about it!

The only thing I can think of here is that Google wants MPEGLA to make all use of H264 on the Web free forever, not just non-commercial use. I think MPEGLA should go ahead and do that, and end all uncertainty about this issue.

They should and make this easier for everyone. I wish Apple would just buy it and make it free and open.
post #57 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by sprockkets View Post


But if we are to be cynical with google, then that means to be fair, apple doesn't want flash on their iphone because it allows running games, apps and other stuff outside their walled garden, and they do not want that at all.

This is an often repeated line about Flash on the iphone. Though, Apple pushed hard for web apps and relented with the app store. Seems like the only thing they've walled out (on the web, clearly they restrict certain apps) is Flash content.

Now, for good or for bad, Apple likes to control the user experience in many ways. In this case, I suspect it is much more of not wanting to dilute the perception of the iPhone because it slows down and drains the battery more quickly, two likely ramifications of allowing Flash. I don't doubt that there's at least a small amount of validity to that argument.

Adobe and Google aren't doing any of what they do out of the kindness of their hearts.
post #58 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by sennen View Post

In your politicking you completely ignore the continuing performance and power issues of flash on mobile devices.

Rather have flash and homestarrunner.com plus less battery life than nothing at all.

Besides, it isn't as if video viewing drains the battery quick anyhow. Benchmarks have proved this time and time again.

Oh, yes, flash isn't good on Android. But there has always been more to flash than just video!
post #59 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdonisSMU View Post

They should and make this easier for everyone. I wish Apple would just buy it and make it free and open.

You don't buy out a consortium of patent holders.
post #60 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by sprockkets View Post

Rather have flash and homestarrunner.com plus less battery life than nothing at all.

Besides, it isn't as if video viewing drains the battery quick anyhow. Benchmarks have proved this time and time again.

Oh, yes, flash isn't good on Android. But there has always been more to flash than just video!

I don't miss flash - in any form - one bit on my 3GS or my iMac or MBP, I have moved on from it. With it's hit on performance and battery life Apple was right to not support it from the get-go.
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
post #61 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by sprockkets View Post

Another angle.

http://www.0xdeadbeef.com/weblog/201...-with-the-web/

The bit you missed:

PUBLISHED: January 24, 2010

Since then the motion picture experts group have take all end user charging out. Forever.
post #62 of 335
This act should leave no doubt in anyone's mind that Google is in fact THE NEW EVIL. They are the whores of technology trying to dominate the world and force us all into their parasitic advertising model under the guise of "free and open". Let's all stop using their products! The value of "free" is zero, and that is what this company is, one big zero. What hypocrites to say they want completely open and free standards, but then they use / support the proprietary Flash crapware. And now want to force us all to have to buy new devices to support their "open" standards? Google, you suck!
post #63 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rattyuk View Post

The bit you missed:

PUBLISHED: January 24, 2010

Since then the motion picture experts group have take all end user charging out. Forever.

We know. But they have NOT stopped charging for encoders or decoders, and that's where the browser issue comes in.
post #64 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by sprockkets View Post

This decision obviously favors google, but I didn't see DED mention this: Web content is royalty free, but not the encoders or decoders.

Nice of Google to release webm, and if anyone wants to sue, just get it over with. No one is suing over Vorbis and a big company, Sandisk uses it, and it isn't as if they can't extract money over a lawsuit.

Of course if Google wants to, YouTube can go web m overnight, as it already is converting to it now on their html5 access view. It can't kill apple to support it, since it is free, and it is hardware supported.

Bullshit - why should apple support a truly inferior codec when they also won't support clearly inferior crapware like flash?
post #65 of 335
Apple drops Flash support and pushes H.264. Apple is one of the patent holders. Google now drops H.264 and has their own codec. The consumer continues to suffer. H.264 is a very nice codec and HTML5 is much better than Flash. Apple was right in pushing for the demise of Flash. Google is simply wanting everyone to play in their sandbox and not anyone else's. I, for one, will not be using Google Chrome.
post #66 of 335
This is a major move from Google that puts them squarely into the mid-90s MS camp.


Quote:
Originally Posted by rec9140 View Post

Most of you are missing the point.

Patents, trademarks, copyrights, IP, it ALL has to go... GO AWAY FOR GOOD!

What a great world it would be that nothing you create could ever be protected under law¡ That I could write a book or make a movie or invent something and never be able to profit from it, to make a living by it and have no recourse to keep others from stealing it¡
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #67 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by sprockkets View Post

How can it be anti-competitive when Google gives the codec away for free? That makes as much sense as apple being anti-competitive for snubbing flash.

The same way IE was free and tied to windows, but still anticompetitive
post #68 of 335
With MPEGLA not charging royalties for the use of H264, I see no reason why Google would want to drop support for it....of course, other than being evil and trying to compete with Apple, which they simply can't in this instant.
post #69 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by penchanted View Post

Do no evil, my a**.

Wonder if they would be bold enough to drop h.264 support on YouTube?

Not sure if you've noticed yet, but Youtube is already blocking some videos on iOS.
post #70 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by sprockkets View Post

So then why snub flash? Because it is the past, not open, etc? At least for video we have a replacement; there isn't anything I can use to view homestarrunner.com on an iOS device, is there?



Just bundling flash with the browser to make sure it is always up to date was done for security reasons. It is very much apparent that Google wants to go to HTML5.

But if we are to be cynical with google, then that means to be fair, apple doesn't want flash on their iphone because it allows running games, apps and other stuff outside their walled garden, and they do not want that at all.

This thread is relatively civil. You should look on ars and see how bad it is.

http://arstechnica.com/open-source/n...r#comments-bar

You are delusional and spreading gross misinformation. Apple doesn't support flash on mobile devices SOLELY because of performance issues. IT IS CRAP, ESPECIALLY ON MOBILE. There are plenty of sources for content on Apple iOS devices other than apple. You can buy music from any source as an example, and there are plenty of sources for video as well such as Netflix. They are ALL ABOUT AN EXCEPTIONAL / THE BEST USER EXPERIENCE. And consumers obviously agree as they have been voting with their pocketbooks by the 10's of millions every single quarter.
post #71 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cinemagic View Post

Apple drops Flash support and pushes H.264.

Note that these arent exclusive. Flash uses H.264 as a codec. All Apple isnt doing is supporting the Flash plugin in iOS for obvious reasons and H.264 was supported in the Mac OS and HW well before that.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #72 of 335
It does seem that the overwhelming response to this decision is negative, bordering on disbelief. I can't help but suspect this announcement is not intended to be followed-through on, but is perhaps a bluff to force a resolution to the h.264 issues with browsers.

If Google push ahead with this, they will find zero enthusiasm for WebM. Like a poster has already said, people just want something that works well and reliably. H.264 works. It's been adopted by major film studios etc. to boot; it's here, it's accepted, it's used by the pros who matter and, crucially, it works on all mobile devices right now.

Every user of Chrome has at least one other browser on their system. If they find themselves constantly being told they are missing a plug-in when they encounter H.264, they'll just switch browsers. They knew how to switch to Chrome, they know how to switch back again... If they start reading 'This site is does not support Google Chrome, please use another browser', and they will see that written by a lot web developers, then Chrome will garner a bad reputation fast.

As for Flash, I really will cheer the day Adobe discontinues it. I loathe it. As someone has said, Apple didn't decide not to support Flash in 2007, THERE WAS NO MOBILE FLASH TO SUPPORT. I regularly browse the BBC website on my MacBook Pro with some serious power under the hood and Flash crashes perhaps 60% of the time when running videos in their default wrapper. It works fine with iPlayer to be fair (which I just read is based on H.264, maybe that's why it's more stable? My iPhone can run iPlayer content...), but it's always the Flash plug-in that crashes. I can honestly say it's far and away the piece of software that crashes most on my mac and yes, Adobe, that's your responsibility, you're the authors of the software!

Steve Jobs has labelled Adobe 'lazy', and I tend to agree. It took three years to come up with a version of Flash that Apple could even take a look at using on iOS, and it looks pretty poor so far on Android. With HTML5, Flash isn't needed any longer, it is as simple as that. Sure, developers need to learn new tools but that's part of life in the software business.

The tick-box "yeah, we support Flash on our tablet/phone" marketing we're seeing really irks me. No mention is made of poor performance, of battery consumption, or of the fact that Flash's very existence is bad for every user of the internet.
post #73 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreeRange View Post

Bullshit - why should apple support a truly inferior codec when they also won't support clearly inferior crapware like flash?

Aside from perhaps not being patent encumbered, nothing.

It isn't that much worse than h.264 either. Nor are we going to sit at old 600mhz ARM cpus either.
post #74 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreeRange View Post

You are delusional and spreading gross misinformation. Apple doesn't support flash on mobile devices SOLELY because of performance issues. IT IS CRAP, ESPECIALLY ON MOBILE. There are plenty of sources for content on Apple iOS devices other than apple. You can buy music from any source as an example, and there are plenty of sources for video as well such as Netflix. They are ALL ABOUT AN EXCEPTIONAL / THE BEST USER EXPERIENCE. And consumers obviously agree as they have been voting with their pocketbooks by the 10's of millions every single quarter.

Well, I wouldn't say "ALL ABOUT". That's Steve Jobs line. Jobs is an exceptional visionary that I admire a lot. He does want an exceptional user experience, but it's his vision of a user experience. That might not be the same as my desires for a user experience. Jobs himself called Flash a CPU hog that was responsible for more Safari crashes than anything else. iOS devices have a difficult time dealing with Flash. Jailbreak apps such as Frash demonstrate the difficulties with Flash and iOS. So it is a great deal about performance issues. And those performance issues directly relate to user experience. But that aside, the app store is a nice little money maker. The elimination of online Flash games from iOS devices is a nice little bonus for Apple (and developers) who can now sell their games in the app store. While this is not (IMO) the primary reason for the elimination of Flash from iOS devices, I'm confident that it was part of a discussion when the decision was made.
post #75 of 335
I was playing around with the Google Chrome browser, but with this boneheaded move, it gets tossed -- deleted! ;-)
post #76 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreeRange View Post

You are delusional and spreading gross misinformation. Apple doesn't support flash on mobile devices SOLELY because of performance issues. IT IS CRAP, ESPECIALLY ON MOBILE. There are plenty of sources for content on Apple iOS devices other than apple. You can buy music from any source as an example, and there are plenty of sources for video as well such as Netflix. They are ALL ABOUT AN EXCEPTIONAL / THE BEST USER EXPERIENCE. And consumers obviously agree as they have been voting with their pocketbooks by the 10's of millions every single quarter.

You failed to see the point - everyone has their technical reasons and business (read: cynical or selfish) reasons to support one or the other. Apple is part of the MPEG-LA, so they obviously has their own financial reasons for supporting MPEG4-AVC/H.264. Google paid $106 million for On2, so it isn't as if they will just let it sit there for nothing either.

To be blind to each others reasons and only point out one or the other is just being an ignorant fanboy.
post #77 of 335
DED claims
"...it does nothing of benefit for Apple (to whom licensing fees are not an issue)..."

My question... who are his sources at Apple? Mr. Jobs himself has talked about paying licensing royalty for Blu-Ray.

"Blu-ray is just a bag of hurt. I don't mean from the consumer point of view. It's great to watch movies, but the licensing is so complex," Jobs said. "We're waiting until things settle down, and waiting until Blu-ray takes off in the marketplace before we burden our customers with the cost of the licensing and the cost of the drives."

I read DED not for the 'news reporting' but for his analysis of Apple's internal thinking
post #78 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Google has announced the intention to remove support for H.264 video playback from its Crome browser to "enable open innovation," yet still apparently plans to promote Adobe Flash.


Ah. So the most important point of the entire situation is that they are hypocrites. OK.
post #79 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by Owen Meaney View Post

DED claims
"...it does nothing of benefit for Apple (to whom licensing fees are not an issue)..."

My question... who are his sources at Apple? Mr. Jobs himself has talked about paying licensing royalty for Blu-Ray.

"Blu-ray is just a bag of hurt. I don't mean from the consumer point of view. It's great to watch movies, but the licensing is so complex," Jobs said. "We're waiting until things settle down, and waiting until Blu-ray takes off in the marketplace before we burden our customers with the cost of the licensing and the cost of the drives."

I read DED not for the 'news reporting' but for his analysis of Apple's internal thinking

Probably more to blu ray than just h.264 patents, as you also deal with DTS and Dolby's stuff.

Really, he is right; it doesn't help apple at all. But it wouldn't kill them either. Apple could use vorbis audio but won't risk it.

Except that whole thing again with them being part of MPEG-LA.
post #80 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by sprockkets View Post

Aside from perhaps not being patent encumbered, nothing.

It isn't that much worse than h.264 either. Nor are we going to sit at old 600mhz ARM cpus either.

Well, Flash video is usually a Flash wrapper around H.264 content nowadays. So Adobe is on the H.264 bandwagon too, they just want you to only access it through them, not directly. The part of Flash that sucks is the wrapper and scripting/animation layers, it also used to be the lack of hardware acceleration although that seems to be mostly fixed now.

My very subversive guess is that because of the Flash as a wrapper around H.264 content setup, Chrome WILL STILL DO H.264 DECODING!!! But ONLY inside Flash wrappers. And if that's the case something is very self serving about the Chrome announcement.
.
Reply
.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac Software
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Google drops support for H.264 video in Chrome to push WebM