or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Google reaffirms intent to derail HTML5 H.264 video with WebM browser plugins
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Google reaffirms intent to derail HTML5 H.264 video with WebM browser plugins - Page 6

post #201 of 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by noirdesir View Post

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.

This is not a good idea, in my opinion. Research costs, and no one will ever invest millions of dollars in something that may then be used freely by competitors.

Imagine you were a pharmaceutic industry, and you just developed a new medicine. You had to spend millions in research (instruments, wages, etc etc). If you don't patent your molecule, someone else is able to use it, without any investment in research, and you loose a lot of money.
post #202 of 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by insike View Post

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.

Google says there are "no know patent violations in VP8" because nobody there has looked. Looking would put them even more in the firing line for WILFUL/DELIBRATE infrigement. Thereby hurting Google more.

The fact they aren't prepared to offer any protection to companies who use WebM, just goes to show how sure of themselves they are (i.e. not in the slightest).

All Google has done is stated facts. But reading between the lines, what they are saying is:
  • There are no known patent violations in VP8 because we haven't looked to know.
  • No one has brought forth any patent claims either...yet!
post #203 of 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by tawilson View Post

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

It can't be an open standard for the W3C, because it is not royalty-free. This was said already.
post #204 of 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

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

Are you suggesting that the <video> tag should work only for Mac OS X or Windows 7 users?
post #205 of 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by geezmo View Post

Are you suggesting that the <video> tag should work only for Mac OS X or Windows 7 users?

What he meant (and what looks as the most intelligent solution to me as well) is that if a browser can't pay for the license, it should use libraries already available on the operating system where it's installed.
As Safari is doing, for example.
post #206 of 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by geezmo View Post

It can't be an open standard for the W3C, because it is not royalty-free. This was said already.

Still doesn't change the fact the H.264 IS an open standard now does it?

Both Goole and WebM's proponents like to twist the meanings so that this fact is lost.
post #207 of 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by EgoAleSum View Post

What he meant (and what looks as the most intelligent solution to me as well) is that if a browser can't pay for the license, it should use libraries already available on the operating system where it's installed.
As Safari is doing, for example.

There are other systems supported by Firefox, Opera, Chrome and Chromium that don't have H.264 available because it is not royalty-free. That's exactly why H.264 can't be a standard according to W3C definition.

It wouldn't hurt for Apple or Microsoft to include at least one royalty-free codec, which looks as the most intelligent solution to me as it would make the <video> tag truly universal.
post #208 of 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by EgoAleSum View Post

What he meant (and what looks as the most intelligent solution to me as well) is that if a browser can't pay for the license, it should use libraries already available on the operating system where it's installed.
As Safari is doing, for example.

Exactly. Mozilla's stance is a little crazy in this respect.

Windows 7, Linux and OS X all have these libraries. Why not just link to them, although I can see it being slightly more work on Mozilla's part to implement the wrapper.
post #209 of 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by geezmo View Post

There are other systems supported by Firefox, Opera, Chrome and Chromium that don't have H.264 available because it is not royalty-free. That's exactly why H.264 can't be a standard according to W3C definition.

It wouldn't hurt for Apple or Microsoft to include at least one royalty-free codec, which looks as the most intelligent solution to me as it would make the <video> tag truly universal.

What systems?
post #210 of 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by tawilson View Post

Still doesn't change the fact the H.264 IS an open standard now does it?

Yes it does because the subject of this whole discussion is the <video> tag defined by open web standards, and these standards are defined by the W3C. H.264 can't be an open web standard because it is not royalty-free. Firefox, Opera and Chrome are just leading the path for an open web.
post #211 of 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by geezmo View Post

Yes it does because the subject of this whole discussion is the <video> tag defined by open web standards, and these standards are defined by the W3C. H.264 can't be an open web standard because it is not royalty-free. Firefox, Opera and Chrome are just leading the path for an open web.

The W3C did NOT even define HTML5!
If we had followed the W3C from the beginning, now we would not be discussing about this... We would be enjoying XHTML2 and the fact that every element can become an hyperlink (woooow!!!)...
post #212 of 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by EgoAleSum View Post

What systems?

You know that there are open source operating systems that are not from Apple or Microsoft. I don't need to name them.

This whole discussion is about open web standards, which exist exactly to not favor one company or another. H.264, as it is, can't be accepted as an open web standard.

You can't blame Firefox, Opera, Chrome or Chromium for not relying on a proprietary technology for videos. They are just doing The Right Thing (tm). This is about the future.
post #213 of 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by geezmo View Post

You know that there are open source operating systems that are not from Apple or Microsoft. I don't need to name them.

I know there are other operating systems.
I know there's Linux, but I also do know that Linux supports H264 (via x264 open source coded). It's just not preinstalled by some distros, but you can find it in the repos of almost any distro. Or you can install it from source. This happens with MP3 too!
Idem for BSD.

What other open source operating systems are being used then? At least, by end users?
post #214 of 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by EgoAleSum View Post

The W3C did NOT even define HTML5!

Well, HTML5 didn't define a standard codec for videos because they couldn't choose a proprietary one. This brings us back to the discussion: isn't it easier to just stick with a royalty-free fallback that everybody can implement and ship?

Nobody is asking Apple and Microsoft to not support H.264 in their browsers or operating systems. They can, as long as they also support a standard codec for videos that will be also available in other browsers and platforms independently of the company being able to afford the current and specially the future royalty fees.
post #215 of 481
How does dropping H264 help with standardizing video on the web?

This another direct attack by Google at Apple. First they invade Apple's space with Android and now this. Apple should send out a clear message and buy Yahoo!
post #216 of 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by geezmo View Post

Well, HTML5 didn't define a standard codec for videos because they couldn't choose a proprietary one. This brings us back to the discussion: isn't it easier to just stick a royalty-free fallback that everybody can implement?

That's not what I meant.
HTML5, referring to the *full* standard (<video> and <audio>, but also Geolocation, Drag and Drop, WebSockets, etc etc etc) was not defined by W3C!
If you read the story of HTML5 you see that the original draft was proposed by "WHATWG", a group formed by Apple, Mozilla and Opera. The W3C instead wanted XHTML2, which included none of the things above (the biggest change in XHML2 is that every element can have a "href" attribute... what a big change! \ )
post #217 of 481
This is a topic well worthy of discussion and Google undoubtedly deserve criticism but I can't help but feel the tone of this is a little over the top, borderline libellous. Some of the statements seem very sweeping and almost like a personal attack on Google as if it were a personage.

That said, I liked it! But I wouldn't want to be on the end of a phone call from a Google lawyer.

I feel more annoyed and irritated with Google for this WebM nonsense than worried that it might succeed in its aims. I just cannot see H.264 being displaced by anything soon. Perhaps H.265 as it has such stakeholders behind it, but ultimately H.264 gets the job done well and is ubiquitous. When Google takes out support for H.264 (which it has every right to do if it doesn't want to incur fees, however easily it could pay them), people won't start using WebM, they'll just install a plugin for H.264.

"Welcome to my site, your browser doesn't appear to support H.264 video. Please download an H.264 codec or use another browser such as Internet Explorer or Safari." - copy and paste, job done!
post #218 of 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by tawilson View Post

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.

While most of what you wrote is correct, I want to point out that 'clean room' development is NOT a defense in patent issues. It only applies in copyright cases. So Google can't use that defense, anyway.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

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).

Not at all. Did you miss all the people (including Google) complaining that Apple had a monopoly - when the iPhone was only about 15% of smartphones and 2% of cell phones?

Quote:
Originally Posted by geezmo View Post

.
Differently from Flash, H.264 is not ubiquitous on the web, and it is not free.

H.264 is not ubiquitous? Are you delusional or just uninformed?

Quote:
Originally Posted by geezmo View Post

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...

That's not true at all. If Mozilla simply uses the libraries already available in Windows, Mac OS X, and Linux, then no additional royalties will be due.

Quote:
Originally Posted by geezmo View Post

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:

That's a loony position - even for someone who pretends that h.264 is not ubiquitous.

As of today, EVERY browser can play h.264. Only a small percentage can play WebM. Even when the next version of Chrome comes out, less than 10% of the browsers in use will play WebM while 90% (all but Chrome) will play H.264 natively. And even the remaining 10% can play H.264 in a Flash wrapper.

Just how in the world does that suggest that WebM has a huge lead?

And that doesn't even get into the quality and performance issues where WebM is severely lacking.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #219 of 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonamac View Post

but ultimately H.264 gets the job done well and is ubiquitous.

It is not ubiquitous on the web. That is why the majority of videos are still served using Flash. The <video> tag is not so widespread and Mozilla, Opera and, now, Google, want to avoid a non-free codec to become the standard for the <video> tag.

The whole point of supporting WebM or any other royalty-free codec is to avoid a proprietary codec to become ubiquitous on the web.

It makes no sense to me to see anti-Flash proponents to bash WebM or any other royalty-free codecs, because supporting them is avoiding the creation of a new situation like Flash: an ubiquitous proprietary technology that will become harder and harder to avoid.
post #220 of 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by tawilson View Post

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.

That is the advantage of forming the patent pool first. I think the wolves... um.. I mean lawyers... are just waiting for the first commercial product to implement Web M so they can sink their teeth in them.
post #221 of 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Even when the next version of Chrome comes out, less than 10% of the browsers in use will play WebM while 90% (all but Chrome) will play H.264 natively. And even the remaining 10% can play H.264 in a Flash wrapper.

Wrong. Firefox, Chrome and Opera will have almost 50% of the market supporting WebM in the <video> tag. Internet Explorer 8 still doesn't support H.264 in the <video> tag, and this will happen only in IE9, to be released only in 2012.

This means that Safari with its 5% of share will be alone supporting H.264 in the <video> tag, until IE9 arrives. By then, more than 50% of the web browsers will have native WebM and Ogg Theora support in the <video> tag. Then <video> on the web will be the Apple-Microsoft alliance against everybody else.
post #222 of 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by geezmo View Post

Are you suggesting that the <video> tag should work only for Mac OS X or Windows 7 users?

I mentioned those two because you mentioned them. Linux of course has libavcodec. The way it gets around the royalties is that you have to compile it yourself.
post #223 of 481
There's this great app called App Zapper. Completely deletes unwanted apps. Just zapped Chrome. More room for something useful.
post #224 of 481
Give Firefox feedback! http://input.mozilla.com/en-US/sad (they force you to download Firefox 4 Beta though... which is not bad, actually)

post #225 of 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by jd_in_sb View Post

DED is an amazing writer.

Did you NOT see all the spelling mistakes?

Are we moving so fast that an 'amazing writer' can make so many writing mistakes that they are a great writer?

Sad to see us slowly drift into stupidity.
post #226 of 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottkrk View Post

If Google did the right thing and relinquished control of the WebM to a standards body I would be supportive but they haven't because they want to control WebM just like with Android.

Google likes to use the term 'open' because it appeals to people with a particular wordview. If you look at another way, Google is simply exploiting the open source community, getting them to work for free, and adding to Google controlled and exploited products like Android/WebM.

"Do no Evil', really??

Shouldn't it be more like: " Externalise costs and risks to third parties to protect advertising monopoly cash-cow".

well you can't blame them for wanting to make money...

some people are stupid enough to buy their crappy android phones though
post #227 of 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by geezmo View Post

Are you suggesting that the <video> tag should work only for Mac OS X or Windows 7 users?

I'll just put up a mozilla plug in button to encourage those who don't have h.264 to download the plug in for FF and chrome. I'm not putting crappy flash on my site.
post #228 of 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by geezmo View Post

Wrong. Firefox, Chrome and Opera will have almost 50% of the market supporting WebM in the <video> tag. Internet Explorer 8 still doesn't support H.264 in the <video> tag, and this will happen only in IE9, to be released only in 2012.

This means that Safari with its 5% of share will be alone supporting H.264 in the <video> tag, until IE9 arrives. By then, more than 50% of the web browsers will have native WebM and Ogg Theora support in the <video> tag. Then <video> on the web will be the Apple-Microsoft alliance against everybody else.

FF has 22% and chrome has 12% of the browser market. Let's get our facts straight. That's no where near 50%.
post #229 of 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by geezmo View Post

It is not ubiquitous on the web. That is why the majority of videos are still served using Flash. The <video> tag is not so widespread and Mozilla, Opera and, now, Google, want to avoid a non-free codec to become the standard for the <video> tag.

The whole point of supporting WebM or any other royalty-free codec is to avoid a proprietary codec to become ubiquitous on the web.

It makes no sense to me to see anti-Flash proponents to bash WebM or any other royalty-free codecs, because supporting them is avoiding the creation of a new situation like Flash: an ubiquitous proprietary technology that will become harder and harder to avoid.

The problem is we don't know if WebM is royalty free. That hasn't been litigated yet. Google isn't offering up protection to those using this codec. More to the point the codec is inferior to h.264 in quality and hardware support.
post #230 of 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

And provided by who exactly?

Do you know if Quicktime supports non-Apple variations of WebKit?

I wouldn't be surprised if a small group of coders make one specifically for Chrome.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tawilson View Post

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

It would be easier if Google directly made money from it, but I don't think the lack of a direct sale removes them from the prospect of damages. I would think that if MPEG-LA wanted to avoid risking losing control of the situation, filing a suit directly against Google would slow adoption by the hardware companies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tawilson View Post

  • There are no known patent violations in VP8 because we haven't looked to know.
  • No one has brought forth any patent claims either...yet!

I think there are two sides to this, has the MPEG-LA made any specific claims, such as what part of the codec violates a specific patent?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Not at all. Did you miss all the people (including Google) complaining that Apple had a monopoly - when the iPhone was only about 15% of smartphones and 2% of cell phones?

Sorry, I've missed that if Google really did say that. Do you recall when and the circumstances?
post #231 of 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by geezmo View Post

Well, HTML5 didn't define a standard codec for videos because they couldn't choose a proprietary one. This brings us back to the discussion: isn't it easier to just stick with a royalty-free fallback that everybody can implement and ship?

Nobody is asking Apple and Microsoft to not support H.264 in their browsers or operating systems. They can, as long as they also support a standard codec for videos that will be also available in other browsers and platforms independently of the company being able to afford the current and specially the future royalty fees.

Who can afford the cost of hosting two or three large files for every video on a site? If it were superior to the h.264 then it would make sense. Right now it doesn't even make sense. Get something free that's not as good. Eeek! I'm sorry but we should be using the best video quality with the smallest size on the web. I guess I'm just not a purist if it means taking a step backwards technologically.
post #232 of 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by geezmo View Post

Yes it does because the subject of this whole discussion is the <video> tag defined by open web standards, and these standards are defined by the W3C. H.264 can't be an open web standard because it is not royalty-free. Firefox, Opera and Chrome are just leading the path for an open web.

The W3C hasn't specified any codec standards, nor are they likely to, so your entire argument on that basis is moot. H.264 is an open standard. WebM isn't any kind of standard, and it's particularly not an open standard. WebM is controlled by a single company, Google, and it is faux open source in the same way Android is faux open source. Both will remain completely controlled by Google and contributions from "the community" will not, in any significant way, end up in either. Basically, what both are is not open source but simply free (as in beer) source code.

The bottom line is that Google loses the whole argument about open standards because WebM isn't any kind of standard (nor will it ever be), and, in the short term at least, this serves the purpose of propping up Flash, which isn't any kind of standard either.

The thing I'm finding the most disturbing about this entire scenario is discovering just how completely uncritical the thought of so many open source advocates. That they just accept without question and at face value, with apparently no real understanding, whatever Google says, as long as they couch it in terms of open this and open that.
post #233 of 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by geezmo View Post

It is not ubiquitous on the web. That is why the majority of videos are still served using Flash.

H.264 served using HTML5 is not ubiquitous on the desktop web but the vast majority of video served on the web is encoded in H.264, served via Flash on the desktop and via HTML5 (or via apps like the iOS Youtube app) on the 'mobile' web.
Switching to WebM thus means re-encoding a whole of lot of video and since hardware decoders in mobile device for WebM will appear overnight, means having to serve your video in two formats, ie, doubling your storage needs.
post #234 of 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

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...

Why not crush them now? I think it makes sense to crush them now.
post #235 of 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by EgoAleSum View Post

This is not a good idea, in my opinion. Research costs, and no one will ever invest millions of dollars in something that may then be used freely by competitors.

Imagine you were a pharmaceutic industry, and you just developed a new medicine. You had to spend millions in research (instruments, wages, etc etc). If you don't patent your molecule, someone else is able to use it, without any investment in research, and you loose a lot of money.

No, this is called a joint venture and it is exactly what the MPEG LA currently does successfully.
post #236 of 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

Give Firefox feedback! http://input.mozilla.com/en-US/sad (they force you to download Firefox 4 Beta though... which is not bad, actually)

Your post brings up a thought.

What is to prevent Apple from building a free plugin for every browser on every OS, as a fallback to the <video> tag ala Flash, that supports h.264 using QuickTime and/or codecs already in the OS when available. MS could do the same with their technology.

Certainly, the "open" browsers would have to give the same level of support to these plugins to use h.264 (and hardware acceleration, when available) as they do the Flash plugin.

Since the royalties are being paid, the end user gets a superior result (codec) -- who could complain?

Good :: Goose == Good :: Gander!
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #237 of 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Your post brings up a thought.

What is to prevent Apple from building a free plugin for every browser on every OS, as a fallback to the <video> tag ala Flash, that supports h.264 using QuickTime and/or codecs already in the OS when available. MS could do the same.

Certainly, the "open" browsers would have to give the same level of support to these plugins to use h.264 (and hardware acceleration, when available) as they do the Flash plugin.

Since the royalties are being paid, the end user gets a superior result (codec) -- who could complain?

Good :: Goose == Good :: Gander!

Ya actually I thought of that briefly. Let Apple build the H.264 plugins and give it away free, this would really flip off Google and Adobe.
Just imagine all the OH NOES APPLE IS DESTROYIN DA FREE AND OPENZ WEBS!
post #238 of 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by noirdesir View Post

No, this is called a joint venture and it is exactly what the MPEG LA currently does successfully.

I know what a joint venture is... But I don't understand what this has to do with my post...
I was telling an user that I don't think a 100% free and open video format may ever be a good solution!
post #239 of 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

... What is to prevent Apple from building a free plugin for every browser on every OS, as a fallback to the <video> tag ala Flash, that supports h.264...

Nothing prevents them from doing this, but the whole point of having video directly supported in HTML was so browsers were not dependent on plugins. The only open standard that is viable for that, however, is H.264. WebM isn't open and it isn't a standard.
post #240 of 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by tawilson View Post

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

H264 is not an open standard. Read the W3C Patent Policy. Open standards are required to be royalty-free. Even Microsoft agrees with this definition.

And even if you disagree, it still violates the W3C Patent Policy whether you call it "open" or not. So it's not compatible with an open web.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac Software
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Google reaffirms intent to derail HTML5 H.264 video with WebM browser plugins