Google reaffirms intent to derail HTML5 H.264 video with WebM browser plugins - Page 7

Nonsense. Of course they have analyzed it. In fact, On2 did too, because their business was based on making video codecs that did not infringe on patents.


The fact that they are actively using it themselves just goes to show how sure they are that there are no patent violations.


You are just spreading FUD.


Yes it does. Because it is not open.


No, it is you who are twisting the meaning. Even Microsoft agress that "open" means royalty-free. Also, this is the web, so the W3C decides.


No, Mozilla's stance is perfectly reasonable since they want an open web.

The W3C is the standards body which publishes the HTML5 standard.


Actually, it was W3C member Opera which started HTML5 in the first place. They always wanted to standardize it through the W3C, but needed support from other W3C members to do so.

I understand all that!

But if Google wants to play their silly game using WebM as a decoy for Flash -- why not provide an alternative decoy? That way h.264 remains viable to every browser on every OS regardless of how Google and Adobe play with each other.

H.264 is an open standard, and there are no W3C standards on codecs, nor will there be, so your argument is meaningless. WebM is not open nor is it a standard, it's completely controlled by one company, Google, so there's no difference in that regard between WebM and Flash.

It is now.


If you read the full story of HTML5, it was started by Opera, and they always wanted it to be standardized through the W3C. They gathered support from Mozilla, Apple and Google, and asked the W3C to standardize it.

The W3C agreed.

Because it deals a blow to a closed standard which is incompatible with an open web.


Oh no! Google is competing with Apple! How terrible! Google must die! Everything Google does is evil because they are competing with Apple!

You quoted my post in which I described the business model of the MPEG LA (without naming it) and said that my proposal (and thus the one of the MPEG LA) will not work because it is not 'commercial enough'.

My point was that if you start to describe the business model of the MGEG LA in general terms (without mentioning names) people will not criticise it for being too closed or too commercial. You even went beyond my expectations and criticised the MGEG LA's model as being too open and too non-commercial.

This article proves how immature the authors of this website are and how brainwashed/obsessive the fanboy commentators are. It's disgusting.

I'll stick to a more credible website like MacRumors.

What the W3C says on the matter is irrelevant, because H.264 is not listed in W3C's HTML5 specification - neither is webM - because the specification leaves it up to the Browser developers (And by extension, the market) to decide which codec or codecs to use. By your argument, browsers shouldn't support JPEG, MP3, AAC (And I could go on).

You know what I hate about FOSS Advocates, and the majority of people bleating about "The Open Web"? They're hypocrites. They go on and on endlessly about how if things aren't "free" or "open", they're inherently evil, because they present barriers to this and that. So as a solution, they advocate ripping these things out and using FOSS equivalents, licensed under things like GPL, and enforcing this change on everyone.

I don't know about you, but my definition of free and open means giving commercial products a chance too. Free and open should mean you're free to choose and access is available to everyone.

Quite what makes FOSS Advocates think they own the web, or that the vast majority of consumes actually care about their ideological battle with commercial software vendors, is beyond me.

It doesn't show anything of the kind. Google is notorious for stealing the intellectual property of others -- just look at the wholesale copyright infringement that is the Google Books Program. They just think they are big enough and have enough lawyers to get away with it. They were wrong about that with Android, and they will be wrong in regard to WebM.

As long as that's ok with your employer, we're fine with it.

Correction: Every browser can use plugins like Flash, and Flash might use h264 or some other codec, but the browser still doesn't support those codecs. Basically, the codec used by Flash is irrelevant to the browser.


Huh?

Chrome, Firefox and Opera will not play h264. That's nearly 50% global market share (in Europe, Firefox is the top browser).

When Firefox 4 is released, most Firefox users will start using it, which means that in addition to the 10-15% market share of WebM-supporting Chrome versions, WebM-supporting Firefox versions will add to that, so that it adds up, to nearly 50% over a few months. And Chrome is growing extremely fast.

On the other hand, Safari has a mere 5% share of the market. And as history shows, uptake of new IE versions is extremely slow, so h264 supporting browsers will be lucky if their collective market share is more than 10% at the end of 2011.

40-50% for WebM vs. 5-10% for h264.


Because a bigger part of the user base of the browsers that support WebM are updated to the latest versions, while the browsers with h264 support have a problem with low market share, and extremely slow migration from older versions to new versions.

Add to this the fact that all you need to do on Windows and Mac is to install the WebM codec on the system, and IE9 and Safari will suddenly support it. As far as I know. On the other hand, Chrome, Firefox and Opera are apparently not going to allow h264 to be used at all.


Actually, compared to h264 baseline, which is what everyone is using, WebM isn't far behind. And quality doesn't really matter here.

Free does not equal open, and
having a price tag does not equal closed.

Flash is free (for browser vendors and end-users) but is it open?
You can open-source software but still attach patents to it.

I really hope you're being sarcastic. Because if you're actually serious about believing that, there's something seriously wrong here.

To the contrary, This action by Google props up a proprietary plugin, Flash, and seeks to eventually replace it with another proprietary technology that isn't open or standard. The only open standard in the game, compatible with an open web, is H.264, WebM is an impostor.

No, what the W3C has to say is extremely important, because their patent policy defines what an open web standard should look like. It doesn't matter that the specification allows for any codec. The point is whether h264 can count as an open standard in the context of the web, which it clearly cant.


I'm not a FOSS advocate, but I'm definitely an open web advocate. Aren't you? Do you not thing that universal access to the web should be a basic right? That access to the web is fundamental in our society, because so many businesses and services rely on it?

Of course we should enforce an open web. Anything else would be utterly insane.


Standards are standards. Open standards are a necessity for universal access to everyone.


It's the openness that made the web possible and successful in the first place.

You are just fighting straw men. FOSS boogiemen everywhere. You sound desperate.

I thought you were leaving?

No, h264 is not an open standard. Even Microsoft agrees that an open standard must be royalty-free.


WebM is not a standard, but it's open, and a separate open-source project. Google is only one of several sponsors. But the important part is that Google gave everyone an eternal, irrevocable free license to use WebM. That means that WebM can be standardized and become an open standard.


It doesn't have to be. Like HTML5 before it, it can be submitted to the W3C or other standards bodies after the basic work has been done.


And what about the Apple fanboys who bash Google just because they fear the competition for Apple?


It most certainly does show that. If Google violates any patents, any patent owner will obviously go after them for the big bucks. There have been a lot of claims about WebM violating patents, but not a single actual case. Put up or shut up.

According to your argument, neither Flash (which Google continues to strongly support, nor WebM can be part of an "open web" either. Neither is a standard nor open, both are controlled by single companies. So, following your logic, The W3C has no option of endorsing anything, making the entire line of reasoning meaningless.

WebM is not proprietary. Google has given out an unlimited and irrevocable free license for it.

Flash is not being propped up. It's just used as a way to continue to support video on the web. And it is a separate plugin, which the HTML spec explicitly allows for. So plugins, even proprietary ones, do not mean a closed web.


False. Did you look up the W3C patent policy yet?


I never claimed that Flash is open. Flash is a plugin, while this is a discussion about native video support in web browsers. Supporting plugins is perfectly fine according to the HTML specification. And it's a way for Chrome to support just about all video sites on the entire web while they work on transitioning everyone towards native video using WebM.

The W3C publishes open standards. They have shown that open standards are vital for an open web.

H264 is not an open standard. Once again, stop making this false assertion, and educate yourself by reading the W3C patent policy.

Just because there is no standard video codec doesn't mean you get to choose some random closed codec and call it open.

WebM is open. It's freely available. No fees. Google has given away any right to collect fees or restrict people from using it. Just like W3C members have to do when an upcoming standard might infringe on their patents. If they do, they have to let the W3C know that the standard will infringe on a patent, and either allow for royalty-free use, or raise an official patent claim, which will then be investigated by the W3C.

And it just so happens that Apple has raised at least two patent objections against the upcoming W3C Widgets standard. Apple refused to allow royalty-free use, so either the W3C had to change the standard, or they would have to spend countless months investigating the patent claims from Apple. Which they did. They concluded that Apple's patent claims against the upcoming W3C Widgets standard were bogus.

Because h264 is closed, and incompatible with an open web (see the W3C patent policy).


In the context of standards, yes, it does. Look up the W3C patent policy. Even Microsoft agrees that an open standard needs to be royalty-free.


Exactly. Flash is not open. H264 is not open.

I LOL'd.

WebM isn't open. The source code is free (as in beer) but there isn't even a real specification, and Google will exercise complete control over it just as they do with Android. You're just allowing yourself to be misled by Google's hypocrtical and self-serving use of the word 'open'. That's what happens when you abandon critical thought and become a "single-issue voter", you get plated and you don't even realize it.


I think the definition of fanboy is one who can only see the issue in a single dimension, which fits you pretty perfectly if you think people are not happy about this because, "they fear the competition for Apple." This is all about Google using it's position to sabotage the open web and take even more control of it than they exercise today. Their life blood is in controlling information and access to it, and that is what this is all about for them. Stop thinking so unidimensionally.


Google has a long history of not respecting iP law, of wantonly disregarding it. They don't care if WebM is violating patents because they a) expect their own liability will be minimal, and b) think they exercise enough power to escape unscathed -- Just like in the Google Books Program. They also don't care what kind of destruction they sow as a result of this or how much it costs other companies, or how it affects users. Chaos is Google's chief competitive weapon. Create enough chaos in a market so that it becomes unstable, then, use their search revenue to move in and take over, that's their business MO.

This isn't about standards -- it's about self-interests!

• Google has self interests -- ask yourself what they are
• Adobe has self interests -- ask yourself what they are
• Mozilla et al has self interests -- ask yourself what they are
• Apple has self interests -- ask yourself what they are
• Microsoft has self interests -- ask yourself what they are
• The W3C has self interests -- ask yourself what they are
• MPEG LA has self interests -- ask yourself what they are
• FOSS has self interests -- ask yourself what they are
• Web Content Publishers have self interests -- ask yourself what they are
• Web Content Data Miners have self interests -- ask yourself what they are
• Web Advertisers have self interests -- ask yourself what they are
• Posters to this forum have self interests -- ask yourself what they are
• Web users/consumers have self interests -- ask yourself what they are

"Look around, Big Joe! Did I miss anybody?"

WebM is open. You have failed to address the fact that Google has given everyone a global, free, irrevocable license to WebM. This means that it could be adopted by the W3C and become a real open standard.


On the contrary, I know exactly what "open" means, as opposted to your ignorant ramblings. Unlike you, I actually know what the W3C Patent Policy says: Did you even read it yet? You have failed to address this even once. You have also failed to address the fact that even Microsoft's definition of "open standard" requires it to be royalty-free.


Your Apple fanboyism is shining through. You are scared shitless because of the way Android is growing, and you will attack any company you perceive as a threat to Apple.

Ridding the web of a closed standard is the opposite of sabotaging the open web. It is, in fact, helping to keep the web open.


Your constant whining about Google Books just goes to show how desperate you are to attack and smear Google. Their own liability will not be minimal if they are infringing on patents, especially since all future Android devices will support WebM natively.


Your FUD is getting old.

Your point being? The interest that should matter here is the interest of the open web.

H.264 is the only technology in this discussion that qualifies as an open standard under any definition. WebM is essentially the same as Flash, just controlled by Google rather than Adobe.

It isn't, and it won't be, and Google will maintain complete control over it just as they do with Android. You really don't know what open means and seem to have simply confused it with free. A common mistake, but one that undermines all your arguments.

And supporting Google's actions in this matter does not promote an open Web. Supporting Google promotes a Web that Google has increasing control over. If you work for Google, or a shareholder, and don't care about anything but your self interest, that may be fine. For everyone else it is, and will be, a very big problem.

Wrong. Even if nothing else here qualifies as an open standard, that doesn't make h264 open. Did you read the W3C Patent Policy yet? Or are you going to keep willfully ignoring facts?


Nope. Just like W3C members have to choose to give royalty-free access to their patents if an upcoming standard violates one, Google chose to make WebM royalty-free, and with an irrevocable open license to do anything.

It's pretty amazing how you keep attacking Google for something irrelevant like Google Books. Using your logic, Apple would be a willful violator and hater of open web standards, since it has cockblocked the W3C Widgets standard at least twice because it allegedly infringed on Apple patents.


Indeed. What promotes an open web is to rid it of a closed standard like h264. In other words, removing h264 and promoting WebM doesn't make it open because it's Google. It makes it open because it removes a closed standard.


Desperate smearing is desperate. You need to stop obsessing over Google.

Everyone? Most sites already have different videos for various resolutions and bandwidths.


It makes sense because h264 is closed, which is not compatible with an open web.


Quality is not really relevant. As long as it's good enough, that's what counts. If quality mattered, BetaMax would have own over VHS, SACD over CD, CD over MP3, PS3 over Wii, and so on.


Not if that means closing the web.


Chrome has nearly 15%, and Firefox around 30%. But let's look at WebM browsers vs. h264 browsers.

I did exactly that in the following post:

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...&postcount=252

"Chrome, Firefox and Opera will not play h264. That's nearly 50% global market share (in Europe, Firefox is the top browser).

When Firefox 4 is released, most Firefox users will start using it, which means that in addition to the 10-15% market share of WebM-supporting Chrome versions, WebM-supporting Firefox versions will add to that, so that it adds up, to nearly 50% over a few months. And Chrome is growing extremely fast.

On the other hand, Safari has a mere 5% share of the market. And as history shows, uptake of new IE versions is extremely slow, so h264 supporting browsers will be lucky if their collective market share is more than 10% at the end of 2011.

40-50% for WebM vs. 5-10% for h264."

Do you really expect Mozilla to take nonsense like that seriously? You know as well as everyone else that there's now way Firefox can support h264.

Sorry guys there is no reason for Safari not to at least offer up support for WebM since there is not risk to them since they said they had no problem paying for the h.264 patents. I am an Apple fanboy as much as the next guy but that's the truth. Apple should be offering up the choice to use WebM or h.264 and LET THE MARKET DECIDE!

insike, let me get this straight:

"open" (and by that you actually mean "free") is more important than quality or hardware support (required for decent battery life and playback of high-res video on portable devices (portable device CPUs being not powerful enough to decode high-res video in software)).

You advocate the "free" web but you're happy with Flash because Flash is a plugin.

Wrong!

The real world is an imperfect place.

A totally open web means, either:
-- everything goes
-- nothing goes

Standards are a means to curb/redirect self-interests to the benefit of the majority.

As you, so conveniently ignore, the user/consumer/tax payer has some skin the game too!

To allow parties to arbitrarily [attempt to] determine what is of benefit to all is not free or open.

What if Apple, MS, and Google were to band together and decide that Flash was not open -- and removed Flash support from their Browsers and OSes?

Would the "interests of the open web" suffer?

Not according to your arguments -- Apple. MS and Google would have just done the "open web" a favor by deprecating closed/proprietary implementations.

H.264 isn't open because it is not royalty-free. That was said already.

That's because you don't understand what 'open' means in this context.

The meme "H.264 is superior" is false. WebM is superior in several aspects. It all depends on who is analyzing.

Hardware support is coming. Matter of time. Most mobile chip makers are already involved with WebM.

This is about the future of the open web.

Royalty-free is a criterion for an open standard, especially on the web. And yes, for the web, open standards are fundamental. You could probably replace the web with some amazing proprietary thing, but that would be a huge step back. The innovation should happen on top of the web, not as a replacement.

Hardware support for WebM is coming, and all future Android devices will have that.

I'm not happy with Flash at all, but Flash is a necessary evil. It's what "everyone" uses for video on the web, so there's no getting around it. However, native video has yet to be clearly defined and settled on. Supporting Flash is necessary while working on eventually replacing it with native video. It's obviously a strategic and pragmatic decision to keep market share while getting the open solution out there.


The context is the web. What does the W3C Patent Policy say again? And even the likes of Microsoft?