Google reaffirms intent to derail HTML5 H.264 video with WebM browser plugins - Page 5

Wait, wut ? That's a textbook example of a straw man argument: I never stated academics don't get paid to do research. I attacked the proposition that "At the end of the day, the main beneficiaries of open-source are academics ..." by arguing that everyone using the internet is using at least *some* form of open source software and/or open standards along the way. Moreover, it is pretty easy to comprehend that for line of business programmers it is much easier to track down problems if they have access to the source code of the pre-canned modules they glue together to solve some problem. The claim that only academics benefit from open source software is therefore false by providing at least two broad and obvious counterexamples.

As for the main discussion itself: it's interesting to note the parallel between h.264 <-> WebM and the GIF <-> PNG format wars from a decade ago. PNG was created to have a non-patent encumbered alternative for loss less image compression. It didn't replace the GIF format outright (mostly because Internet Explorer 6 had pretty horrible PNG transparency support) but it did manage to become a widely used format. However, PNG has technical superiority over GIF where WebM as a format doesn't as far as the reports from experts in video compression that I've read state. This does not mean however that it's impossible for WebM videos to get better over time as more research is put into writing better encoders that still stay true to the format specification. Ogg Theora had similar improvements over time for instance. In the light of GIF and PNG, is it really a problem that there are also two video formats ? Let the "open source hipsters" use WebM or if you don't want to have to pay patent "protection money". If you have a license to use h.264 then sure, use it. Either way, all relevant browsers will play one format or the other over time or both through some plugin.

[QUOTE=EgoAleSum;1786792]
It's actually less than that if you do the math.

But the point is - Google's whining about royalties being unjust and needing to develop a 'free' version are silly. No one cares about paying $0.20 more for an iPhone (actually, as you point out, you're not even paying that. The cost is almost certainly not being passed on to the consumer). I'd rather pay the $0.20 for a better quality product (H.264) rather than use a POS that's free.

And, of course, that assumes that WebM really doesn't infringe on patents. Given that one of Google's biggest effort in the past decade was attempting to copy every published work in history and make it available online without the owner's permission (or even knowledge), Google is probably the LAST company on earth I'd listen to when it comes to intellectual property issues.

Google should've made WebM better than h.264 first. Then it would've made sense for everyone to move towards WebM. I want non patent tech to win out but it's inferior right now.

Search = why? Way outside their current core competencies; and one and a half (Bing) big barriers to entry. "Span of control" is a huge management issue for any large company. You can only drive effectively in so many directions at once before cohesion and mission are seriously compromised.

Mapping software and cloud-based content creation (both alive at Cupertino), on the other hand, seem like more logical places to play which are related to today's and near-future Apple, Inc.

Apple's success in resurrecting itself has partly come from limiting a proliferation of SKU's. The first thing Jobs did when he came back was to prune, prune, prune the Apple tree, and then start adding it to it one carefully curated and masterfully introduced product at a time (each with an easy memorable name unlike "HD RX7000T" whether you like the names or not).

Video site: Unlikely. iTunes is already getting more seriously unwieldy and loaded with legacy issues by the rev that will ultimately likely be as difficult to address as MS has found updating Windows to be. A "video site" would have to fit into the "Apple ecosystem" without compromising all the rest of their media content delivery mechanisms. Maybe there's a model but I don't see it.


Didn't see much other reaction to this. Other than the fact that as DED points out, Mozilla's already being massively propped up by Google (true??), is there any merit here?


No, please, NOOOOOOO!

More Apple bashing! The demise of rotating media will be the consequence of a natural progression of technology, not the the result of some evil, Apple led conspiracy.

How can you argue freedom of choice as google is taking choices away in order to prop up inferior technologies? They are just as bad as Apple's iOS on that front.

Making things difficult for Apple/iOS users is a really bad idea. Once again, Google does something they didn't quite think through all the way.

Back to plugins, are we?

Have you seen the list of patents contributed to the AVC/H.264 open standard? It's a 70-page A4 document

The patent pool is also international. So Google would be starting up one hell of a shit storm, that even they couldn't remain unaffected by.

There isn't a chance in hell that WebM does NOT infringe on some of these patents. Patent holders, with number of granted patent filings contributed (some patents are protected in multiple countries) in brackets, are:

• Apple Inc. (4 patent filings(s) in 1 countries)
• Cisco Systems Canada IP Holdings Company (4 patent filings(s) in 1 countries)
• The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York (9 patent filings(s) in 6 countries)
• DAEWOO Electronics Corporation (2 patent filings(s) in 1 countries)
• Dolby Laboratories Licensing Corporation (10 patent filings(s) in 6 countries)
• Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (4 patent filings(s) in 3 countries)
• France Télécom, société anonyme (7 patent filings(s) in 7 countries)
• Fraunhofer‐Gesellschaft zur Foerderung der angewandten Forschung e.V. (86 patent filings(s) in 28 countries)
• Fujitsu Limited (18 patent filings(s) in 5 countries)
• Hewlett‐Packard Company (1 patent filings(s) in 1 countries)
• Hitachi, Ltd. (4 patent filings(s) in 1 countries)
• Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. (42 patent filings(s) in 18 countries)
• LG Electronics Inc. (386 patent filings(s) in 38 countries)
• Microsoft Corporation (116 patent filings(s) in 23 countries)
• Mitsubishi Electric Corporation (26 patent filings(s) in 8 countries)
• Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Corporation (2 patent filings(s) in 1 countries)
• NTT DOCOMO, INC. (15 patent filings(s) in 5 countries)
• Panasonic Corporation (574 patent filings(s) in 41 countries)
• Robert Bosch GmbH (5 patent filings(s) in 5 countries)
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (60 patent filings(s) in 12 countries)
• Sedna Patent Services, LLC (1 patent filings(s) in 1 countries)
• Sharp Corporation (87 patent filings(s) in 19 countries)
• Siemens AG (5 patent filings(s) in 4 countries)
• Sony Corporation (34 patent filings(s) in 12 countries)
• Tandberg Telecom AS (1 patent filings(s) in 1 countries)
• Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (5 patent filings(s) in 5 countries)
• Toshiba Corporation (272 patent filings(s) in 6 countries)
• Victor Company of Japan, Limited (5 patent filings(s) in 2 countries)

49 countries are involved in this patent portfolio, so it's not exactly going to be easy for Google or others sweep the whole patent issue under the carpet.

Interestingly, On2 Technologies, Inc. is listed as a licensee of H.264/AVC, so this will definitely take the sting out of any "clean room" defence Google may try and present.

It's also rather interesting that most of the patents are owned by Far Eastern Companies, the same ones who are making Android handsets. I doubt Google will want to piss them off too much either.

Its not about money its not about royalty fees its not about openness its not about quality

Its the DATA stupid!

YOUR data!
Google has the best search algorithm BUT it is useless if data YOUR data is missing.
Flash and I bet VB8 allow Google to SPY on your usage for Google's benefit.
We already know what the CEO thinks of Privacy --- This is the only way Google can make a buck --- to spy and use the data to mine for direct sale of ad space to you ( they know what you like what you view what you do what you buy) ALL to make them big Brother in the (Ad) world

Apple prevents papers from knowing what you do via H.264 and App store.
Papers don't like it but Google can sell to them Flash data at a price!!
Google remains head honcho for ever!

This bit I get.


WTF are you talking about here, though?

Good post. I don't know many of these people are the same people as the ones who make Android devices. I don't know but this could totally backfire on google. I hope they did their research on this before they went and announced this also... I think MPEG group should just drop the licensing fees altogether. Mozilla isn't going to budge and Google is unlikely to budge. I would rather this be hashed out in court so we can see who is doing what. I don't know why MPEG hasn't already been looking into patent infringements beforehand. What was the logic behind them not already pursuing a case regarding On2 and now WebM? I would've rather this been litigated in court already so we know what to do as developers.

The MPEG LA needs to point out right now any patents infringed by WebM, before the damage is too big, and NOT play the "patent troll strategy" of waiting until it is wide spread to charge more royalties...

Chrome will play html5/h.264 with a plug-in.

I see there's a lot of fire in the bellies of the regular trolls, fanbois, et al, but I'm going to avoid all that and simply state: I don't install plug-ins. No Flash, no Silverlight, and definitely no WebM. If I visit a site that requires plug-ins I simply move along. They can't want my money if they force me to install a plug-in just to see their content.

Do you use Firefox on Mac? Did you remove the Quicktime 7.6.6 plugin?

It would be nice if people informed themselves before posting...

Ohhhh boy I bet you MPEG LA is waiting patiently for Google to roll out WebM for a year or so, make some nice patent-infringing improvements to it... Then BAM! Crush WebM with litigation. Just you see...

YouTube is a monopoly based on what? Youtube is about 43% of number of videos viewed. That's the weakest monopoly I've ever seen (sarcasm).

http://searchengineland.com/youtube-...-viewers-43379

Google's video services are dominant by far, but there is a plethora of other services out there that it's not that hard to avoid YouTube if you're looking for a bit of entertainment. Personally, I'd like to see Vimeo get a bigger share. Maybe not as feature-full of a site, most things look and work better than on YouTube.


If I didn't know better, it read like that of someone learning English as a second language. The English language does have a lot of colloquialisms, metaphors and so on, it just reads like a poorly mixed metaphor in my opinion.

List of WebM supporters:

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

Opera's reasonings:

http://my.opera.com/haavard/blog/2011/01/13/openness

Have fun.

This part of the Opera article is nonsense (and who really cares about Opera anyways?)

"Google bundles Flash, so it is being hypocritical"

This is comparing apples and oranges. Flash is a plugin, which Google chose to bundle because there is a lot of Flash content out there. On the other hand, H.264 would be part of the browser itself, and not a mere plugin.

One important thing to keep in mind is that Flash is already ubiquitous. If you want to do any kind of video on the web, you don't have a choice. Flash is needed. However, the "battle" over HTML5 video is still raging. There is no clear winner, but with Google dropping the closed H.264, it is much more likely that an open format will prevail in the end.

So when Google keeps bundling the Flash plugin, it makes perfect sense. Most video content on the web uses Flash, and that allows Google to continue to support just about all online video until native video support gains a proper foothold. There is no hypocrisy involved here, just pragmatism.

In the end, the question of Google's bundling of Flash is a red herring which takes away the focus from the real issue: Whether native video support in browsers is based on open or closed technologies.

By the above reasoning, why doesn't Google just bundle a plugin for H.264? If "most of the web video is still Flash", a lot of the web video is also H.264. Clearly Google is favouring WebM and Flash video for their own purposes. It's a pity all the open source idealists are going to be thoroughly conned by Google. Even the article suggests "Oh, Flash is ubiquitous, so we give up, let's embrace that decrepit closed proprietary system" and "it's just pragmatism". Wouldn't it be more pragmatic to let Flash die and just work with H.264 and clarify licensing, royalties, etc.? People, don't buy this smoke-and-mirrors stuff from Google and Opera. More gems: "If you want to do any kind of video on the web, you don't have a choice [but to use Flash]". Nice one, open source proponents. I didn't know roll over and play dead was part of your strategy.

Here's the best part, the article acknowledges: VP8 is a technology with a specification, not a standard. However, Google has granted anyone the right to use it, and makes no claims about patents to restrict its royalty-free use. This means that VP8 is actually a good candidate for being turned into a proper open web standard.

So... it's just "a good candidate"? And Google makes no claims about patents? IE, if you get sued Google will just whistle as it walks past.

Uh, you seem to be labouring under the incorrect assumption that I have some kind of problem with the fact that MPEGLA is charging for the use of the patents, or that I'm suggesting it's something end users should care about. Neither of those things is true, I was merely pointing out the factual inaccuracy in the idea that they were charging 0 and therefore the increase of 10% was incalculable unless it was calculated as zero. My point was people were conflating the use of H.264 on the web with the use of H.264 full stop. But incidentally, just because the cost is negligible enough not to be directly factored doesn't mean you're not paying it, it just means it's so triflingly small as to be irrelevant.

Just one of many reasons H.264 is the world-leader and the industry standard (And why Google can take a long walk off a short pier if it tries anything more aggressive than this futile Chrome Heel Face Turn to install itself as the sole provider of web video codecs).

And provided by who exactly?

As long as webM stays as is this may be true. In order for webM to evolve and be improved, which must be done, it would or will become a patent nightmare.

Research this just a bit and you will see the many potential and probable patent problems of developing webM any further.

And that is Googles strategy because they have no IP.
Develop something and push it to market no matter whose patents it violates.
Give it away for "free" and reach critical mass.
Once the patent case works its way through the court system the user base is "too big" for the courts to force Google to pull the plug.
And thats how Google gets around patent law.
They tried it with Android and now they are trying it with WebM.

I am glad that Oracle is standing up for their IP and I hope the patent holders of IP that WebM does that same instead of taking the payout.

Hopefully the US justice department slaps them down.

Folks, its all about control. Google wants it but being the new kid on the block they have no IP so they have little control.

.
Differently from Flash, H.264 is not ubiquitous on the web, and it is not free. We are not settled yet on which codec should be used on <video> tags. That's why most web video services still support Flash. And given that Mozilla and Opera have together 30-35% of the browser market (now 40-47% with Chrome), video publishers won't stop supporting Flash until the majority of the browser makers support a royalty-free video codec in line with W3C patent policies, so that every web video publisher can be sure that the majority of browsers can play videos using the <video> tag.

Mozilla, Opera, Chrome, Chromium, Konqueror and others will support WebM, most of them because they can't afford the royalty fees. If Apple and Microsoft want to revert this trend and make at least Opera and Mozilla support H.264, they should volunteer to pay their royalty fees for a lifetime. The problem is that they can't as nobody knows how much H.264 royalties will cost in a few years. An alternative is to support a royalty-free codec natively in their browsers, which should be trivial to them. This would make it possible to have a standard codec for the <video> tag.

MPEG LA is already saying they believe that WebM already violates some MPEG LA patents. If WebM gets any of the major improvements it needs would also mean more patent violations = LAWSUIT(s).

Google making WebM available free, WITHOUT PATENT INDEMNIFICATION, should tell everyone all they need to know about WebM.

Holy Troll Batman! How do we fight such evil...

Hold on my crime fighting friend, I've invented a Bat Bunter! Simply push the second button on your belt and the "Troll will be abolished" will work. It's a new Android enabled feature!

I'd imagine nothing has happened yet because there is no money to be made from said litigation.

Why would you have to care about Opera? Opera isn't important here. It's the argument that matters. But you obviously don't think you have a strong counter-argument, so you resort to petty attacks.


They are. It's called Flash.


But the point is that the h264 is served through Flash, so Flash serves the purpose of allowing Chrome to show just about any video online while Google is working on making WebM the codec of choice for native video.


Google is favoring WebM for native video, and is using Flash for practical reasons.


Your attacks fail miserably again. Opera isn't open-source! It's about open standards, not about source code.


No, it's pragmatism to use what's already out there for now. Google doesn't want h264 because it's not compatible with the open web.


From Google and Opera? Are you saying that Google and Opera are part of some evil plan to open the web?


Your attacks fail miserably again. Opera isn't open-source! It's about open standards, not about source code.

And it's not about rolling over. It's describing the situation as it is today. Flash is simply the de facto standard for video on the web. There's a reason why most video sites don't work on the iPhone. Apple is lucky that Google chose to serve h264 videos on YouTube, because that saves Apple's ass.

It's funny. Google saves Apple by allowing iOS devices to view h264 content on YouTube!


You dishonestly cut off the sentence. It reads: "makes no claims about patents to restrict its royalty-free use"

The point is that Google has released WebM to the world for free, and will not demand royalties for VP8 patents. Google has also said that there are no known patent violations in VP8, and no one has brought forth any patent claims either.

No, the situation is far, far worse for h264. It's extremely disturbing.

We know that Firefox, Chrome and Opera users are fairly quick to upgrade. This means than when Firefox 4 is released with native WebM support, browser versions that support WebM will be:

• Chrome 6+
• Firefox 4
• Opera 10.6+

On the other hand, h264 is supported by:

• IE9
• Safari 3+

Now, the h264 supporter might be smiling because IE is on the h264 side, but he should wipe that smile right off him. Because what will IE9's market share be? It will be tiny! And it will remain tiny for years to come.

On the other hand, Chrome is really growing crazily, and Firefox is quite stable. And Chrome 6+, Firefox 4 and Opera 10.6+ will have nearly 50% market share in total!

On the other hand, IE9 and Safari 3+ will start out with Safari's 5% and IE9's 0%. And then IE might grow slowly over time, but this whole time, WebM will be supported by nearly 50% of browsers with HTML5 video support, while h264 will be supported by less than 10%!

And since h264 support in browsers is so limited, the right choice will be to go for WebM, because then you cover nearly half the market (and growing).

The MPEG-LA would have acted on it by now if they weren't just bullshitting.


What an amazing assumption. "Improvement == patent infringement."


What about Google using WebM in all its products, then? Wow, your selective reasoning is really something...

Since the alternative would require them to think up some new compression technique no-one has ever thought of before, in a highly competitive industry, it's not much of an assumption.

Apple made a deal with MPEG-LA, and the chip makers have put H.264 in hardware, not because they have some bias against open-source, but because they are just dealing with the facts as they are. OS scheduling algorithms, filesystem techniques, HTML renderers, ... -- sure, use open source (and OS X does), but video compression is a special case.

Nearly half of the "software" supporters of WebM I've never heard. Most of the other half *license H.264/AVC*, here's a list of them:

• Android (via Google)
• Codecian
• CoreCodec
• Digital Rapids
• FFMPEG
• Flash (via Adobe)
• Flumotion (via Fluendo S.A.)
• Google Chrome (via Google, although support is dropped they still licensed it)
• Inlet Technologies (not sure of licensing of H.264, but they need to use it in their iOS product line).
• Java (via Sun Microsystems)
• Matroska (via CoreCodec as the owners of the copyrights and spec)
• Moonvida (uses H.264, so can't rule out source code looking/contributing)
• ooVoo, LLC
• Oracle (as both Oracle and Sun)
• Harmonic
• Skype Technologies
• SightSpeed (via Logitech, since 2008)
• Sorenson
• Telestream
• Ucentrik
• Wowza (their server can ENCODE for iOS, so it will probably use H.264)
• XBMC (makes use of H.264 most likely using x264)

As far as patents go they can pretty much be considered dirty as they all have access to the H.264 tech/code directly, or indirectly through the likes of x264's source code.

These supporters, seeing as they license H.264/AVC, have a problem of cross-pollenating WebM with H.264/AVC tech (if they have any input at all into WebM), albeit unintentionally. Just adds more weight to the patent infringing fire in my eyes.

The only clean software supporters are:

• iLinc (not too sure, they MAY use H.264)
• Mozilla Firefox
• Opera
• Tixeo
• WINAMP (although who knows, seeing as anyone can commit source code)
• Wildform (not sure)

Also, H.264/AVC has 940 licensees (therefore supporters), which makes WebM's supporters look irrelevant.

Will Apple or Microsoft volunteer to pay H.264 royalties for Mozilla during a lifetime, so that Firefox can bundle H.264? Otherwise, 30% of the web users that use Firefox won't have H.264 natively in their browsers. If they don't volunteer, we won't ever be able to use the <video> tag, and we will have to continue relying on Flash...

There's of course a simpler route. Apple and Microsoft could support at least one royalty-free codec in their browsers, so that the majority of users would have native video through the <video> tag. As it is, we will have half of the market (Firefox, Opera, Chrome, Chromium, Konqueror etc) supporting only royalty-free codecs, and the other half (Internet Explorer and Safari) supporting only H.264.

Even Microsoft defines "open standard" as one that is royalty-free. And remember, this is about the web. An open standard on the web must be royalty-free. Look up the W3C patent policy.

HTML5 didn't have any support either when it first arrived. Your logic is extremely weird.

Exactly. Besides being royalty-free which should attract more supporters, WebM is going to have a huge lead in terms of video for the web, exactly because IE9 won't be ready until 2012, while 90% of Chrome users and 80% of Firefox users use the latest versions, versus 70% for Safari and 60% for Internet Explorer:

http://royal.pingdom.com/2010/11/05/...atest-version/

So the Apple-Microsoft alliance will have a real challenge to push H.264 adoption for the web.

There are lots of patents in video compression and streaming, held by a large number of companies. What is the best way to prevent a mess of countless cross-licensing agreements and patent law suits and yet combine as much patents as possible to create the best technological solution possible?

Why not get the 20 most-involved companies to pool all their patents, immediately removing the need for any cross-licensing agreements or law suits among them, and creating a state-of-the-art video codec from all this intellectual property. Let's charge pretty small, almost nominal, charges for anybody to use this codec. Since this patent pool would have such a large number of patents, no other company creating a video codec would be likely to sue as for any patent infringement because if we violate one of their patents, they also very likely violate some of our patents.

Doesn't this sound like the best idea to create both the best video codec possible and minimize all the patent wrangle associated with complex technology?

But you might say, would not be even better to make all those pooled patents completely free? Sounds nice in principle but if it is then found that our codec violates a patent from somebody else, we would not have any more ammunition left (ie, for a counter suit) to protect our codec from legal challenges.

Mac OS X and Windows 7 both have H.264 decoding in the operating system libraries. Any program, including Mozilla can use these functions.

If that were truly the case then they would be supporting H.264 which is an OPEN STANDARD from ISO?!?