Google reaffirms intent to derail HTML5 H.264 video with WebM browser plugins - Page 12

The W3C patent policy defines how open web standards published by the W3C relate to patents.


Incorrect.


Yes, this means that members can do this and avoid having the standard infringe on their patents. But this means that the W3C would have to find a way around it. It doesn't mean that they will allow anyone to collect royalties from open web standards.


Utter nonsense. Mozilla wants an open web, and open web advocates have universally rejected h264, and at the same time applauded Google's move.


Pure and utter nonsense again. Mozilla is an independent organization, and they have even been considering dropping Google. They will use the best search engine, and are not loyal to Google in the least.


Wrong. WebM fits the criteria.

It doesn't matter if Google is lying about the reasons. That only becomes insane, paranoid speculation. We can, however, look at the actual results of Google's actions. Apple fanboys want to spew the "evil Google" red herring, though, because they know that Google is a huge threat to Apple.

Yet another windbag who ignores the actual facts, and goes on an all-out attack.

He even bring up the old Flash argument, which is so thoroughly debunked he must know he's lying through his teeth.

Fail.

WebM is not a lousy codec I agree, but it is definitely NOT better than H.264, yet. Almost every comparison of H.264 and WebM that finds WebM to be better is using the baseline profile of H.264 (which is for lightweight/mobile devices). Where as the only effective for profile WebM (there is no concept of profiles in WebM) would be analogous to H.264 Main Profile. And H.264 Main Profile beats WebM hands down.

H.264 has 17 different profiles which allow it to scale very different situations and use-cases. WebM does not have this.


Maybe, maybe not. However On2 is a licensee of technology from the MPEG-LA, so the chances are they, however unintentionally, made use of patented implementations when writing their own code.


At least they aren't just ignoring facts.

I fail to see why all the opposition is being placed in the court of the "Apple Fanboys", as Apple has the least interest in this, as per a previous post of mine:

• 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)

And to be quite honest, I doubt WebM can either, as it WILL be patent nightmare.

A) That's only speculation.

B) It's irrelevant. No codec can become w W3C standard. Period. I can see you conveniently ignored the next to last paragraph of my last post.

Stop trying to look like you understand the W3C recommendation process. Have you ever had an edit on the HTML5 draft? Have you touched it with your fingers? Have you argued about some chunk of minutia in wording and whether that goes too far into legislating implementation or leaves too much slop in the description? Do you actually understand what the Working Group is trying to do, and what politics the Working Group doesn't want to get involved in, ever?
[No, I've never been to a WG meeting or communicated directly. Yes I've had a pass on the HTML5 draft awhile ago and argued points with our rep who does go to the WG meetings and has a vote.]

It would be simple to legislate a few codecs as necessary for the <video> tag. And that would so hopelessly break the relevance of the entire standard that every tag would be fought over for implementation supremacy legislated into the recommendation.

That isn't what W3C is about. You implement to the standard, not standardize an implementation. Standardizing an implementation is how you make the standard technologically obsolete in three or four years, and irrelevant in just a few more. And the next whine I can see coming is saying "WebM is a standard!", and the answer is yes and no. Yes it is a codec standard. No, a codec is not a web standard.

There's plenty of money to be made in databases. Ask oracle. So why no Apple enterprise database offering? Because it's way out of Apple's swim lane.


It would. But Apple didn't do ads before Google elected to compete directly in one of Apple's core areas. Apple returned the favor but not all that seriously. iAds is a pinprick against AdMob.

The key is that in antagonizing Apple Google stands to loose access to iOS devices. For no good reason.


The engines are the same so the differences are in user experience. Apple can do user experience better than Google when it cares to. Safari doesn't get all that much attention from Apple...moving the battleground to include browsers may make Apple put a little more TLC into Safari again. That's pretty dumb from a strategic perspective. You don't want Apple to spend anything on improving safari.


Google could have made a lot of money staying partnered with apple as opposed to directly competing. I guess their concern was if WM6/WP7 had gone unopposed then MS would have had a large share locking out Google eyeballs. Getting locked out of iOS eyeballs will be just as bad if it comes to that. And Android having such large share would allow Apple to do whatever and not worry about monopoly issues if it comes to that.

Eh, they made an enemy unnecessarily and now face competition where they wouldn't have otherwise. The WebM decision is simply petty and stupid. Their only saving grace is that maybe Jobs is too sick to really fight hard. I don't think he really has the strength and time to personally manage iAds to make it great. Beating Android does little to hurt Google and Oracle might do just enough perception damage to make WP7 bounce back from the dead.

That's hilarious coming from people who are actively spreading FUD by speculating about "surely WebM must be infringing on some patent somewhere".


Of course a codec can become a W3C standard. The W3C actually wanted one, but Apple sabotaged the whole thing.


Which was?


I do understand it. You don't.

Ads apparently are not.


So what you are saying is that Apple is a bunch of childish whiners who will start doing stuff just to spite some other company? I guess that fits their behavior in the W3C, come to think of it...


LOL. Apple is always trying to improve Safari.


LOL. Your comments are hilarious. You are afraid of Google, and are trying to come up with reasons to reassure yourself.


That's amazing coming from someone who says that Apple is so childish, petty and stupid as to add a new business model out of spite! ROTFL!

How's that hilarious, it's merely the flip side of YOUR coin. A quite serious coin indeed.



Spoken like a true crusader for what I don't know. Go ahead and think you know what you do, if it makes you comfortable and shuts you up, the boards will have less thought pollution.

And thanks for putting your disregard and lack of knowledge of the W3C process on display for all others to determine for themselves. My work in that regard is done, anyone who cares now can see it quite plainly.

I was wondering when third party solutions would begin to appear, here is one:

Microsoft provides H.264 plug-in for Windows users of Firefox and Chrome

It's hilarious because the fact is that On2's business model relied on avoiding patents. Nice analysis here:

http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/an-an...s-patent-risk/

More:

http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/on-we...ality-patents/


Uh, hello? Apple opposed a standard codec in HTML5! It's a known fact. It's on the god damn record!


You didn't even know about Apple's involvement in blocking a standard HTML5 codec. LOL.

Not very useful, since it's just a plugin. Not native HTML5 video.

I don't understand why you don't think it's useful because it is a plug in. Plug ins aren't an alien concept to computer users.

Source please.

Because you might as well use Flash then. Why replace one plugin with a different plugin?


Source for what?

Just using flash seems to cause other problems that using a dedicated, single purpose plug-in rarely causes.


Wow, really? Did you read the part that he quoted?

He's just being coy, because he knows as well as everyone else there is no such source, and that W3C never wanted a single codec as a standard, as that isn't multi-vendor interoperable. The whole idea of legislating a single implementation for something is counter the the W3C philosophy.

After all this time, I still don't get the problem. Why can't the <video> tag support whatever the browser is developed to support, just like what was the case with the <img> tag? It would get things moving.

Look at PNG in <img> tags. It was never widely included in browser implementation, as far as I know, until Safari started pushing it, and now all the other browsers have added PNG support.

So what I'm saying is that browser developers should add whatever support they want to the <video> tag, and see where the market takes them. Why do they have to wait for W3C to act?

That's the rub, isn't it! Some browser makers are whinging that more than one codec is a fracturing influence and a burden to development. And as you point out with the previous history, it's all a bunch of bunk. So really it's about politics and market power, nothing else.

Such as?


Because there needs to be an open standard to ensure an open web. Remember the gif mess? The W3C learned from that. But Apple and Nokia refused to allow for an open baseline codec.

I didn't know people were this ignorant of the history of HTML5. Maybe you should educate yourself:

"The HTML5 Working Group consider it desirable to specify at least one video format which all user agents (browsers) should support."

"Initially, Ogg Theora was the recommended standard video format in HTML5, because it was not affected by any known patents"

And as for your ignorant comment about "a single implementation", that is just nonsense. The W3C wouldn't standardize a single implementation. They would create a standard which implementations would be based on.

So contrary to your crazy claim, this would be exactly what the W3C is doing everywhere else.

The W3C learned from the gif mess, you see.

Nope. If you use a codec that isn't supported by popular browsers, then that's bad development. It's not lack of an "open web".

If a browser doesn't support a widely implemented codec, then that's bad business, too. Again, it has nothing to do with and "open web".


Nope, I don't remember there being much of a "mess" at all. I was right there coding html for Mosaic 2.0 and .gif and .jpeg just worked as far as I know. Then came GIF89, and that was added to browsers pretty quickly. Finally, somewhere along the line, .png was added. It really wasn't a problem.

If Safari and IE support h.264 in a <video> tag, we can start coding for it right now. If Chrome and Firefox support some currently inferior codec for whatever reason, that's their choice, and we can code for that, too. To ensure compatibility, we can code for both (or more). Then plug-ins will be made available that make whatever codec usable by whatever browser anyway, and one codec will come out on top, at which point we can simplify our code by coding for just that one codec. That would let the market decide.

Then if that one codec is suddenly made unavailable for licensing or other legal reasons, a batch conversion tool could quickly be used to fix broken links. Not a real problem.

In the end, it's far better to have two choices of codec to use in a <video> tag than none at all, no matter how much security we might have that such coding isn't just temporary.

Yes, it's exactly an open web which is the issue here. H264 is incompatible with an open web.


The format was affected by patents, and there was a huge mess around that. Maybe you are too young to remember. A lot of people who are opposed to an open web seem to be young and ignorant of the historical facts.


Safari and IE9's market share combined is around 5%. You can start coding for 5%, or you can start coding for 40% (Chrome + Firefox).


No, it's far better to have a standardized baseline codec. It's always possible to support more, but there should be a standard baseline codec, which is what the W3C wanted to do until Apple started refusing.

You don't get my point. There's no open standard now. Our choice isn't between an open standard and a proprietary standard. Our choice now is between a proprietary standard and nothing. I don't want nothing.

And don't look at it as a choice between open standard and closed standard. WebM and H.264 are both proprietary standards. One is guaranteed to be free forever for developers and users (that's not the same thing as "open"). One is currently free for developers and users, and guaranteed to be free for users forever, but there's some risk that developers may have to pay a license fee in the future.

But that doesn't make WebM any better, in any way, whatsoever.

H.264 has a risk that developers may have to pay a license fee sometime in the future.

WebM has an equally valid, if not GREATER risk that it's going to be killed by patent suits. How in any way is that a better option?

And yes, I am old enough... as I said in my post, I was hand-coding html for Mosaic 2.0, and that's not a lie. There were patent issues with GIF and for the end user and for developers alike, it just wasn't too much of a problem to deal with. It was not "a huge mess". Especially not for end users, who didn't even feel a bump.

Wrong. Our choice is between a proprietary standard, and an open technology.


No. WebM is not a standard. But anyone can make it a standard, since the license is so liberal.


Yes it does, because it will be free forever.


Wrong. This is just FUD. Here's the reality of the situation.

http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/an-an...s-patent-risk/

In fact, H264 is much more likely to infringe on patents than WebM, because unlike On2, the MPEG-LA did not go out of its way to avoid patents.

You're still here? Why do you bother coming back and repeating yourself over and over again whilst adding nothing new? Why don't you just link to a previous post that reads exactly the same? It would save you time.

Your arguments are non existent; you have repeatedly failed to construct a sound argument as to exactly how the end-user benefits from a codec being "open" (you mean free), rather than the codec having royalties associated with it. You have repeatedly ignored the fact that there are open-source implementations of both an H.264 encoder and decoder, meaning that it is perfectly possible for Mozilla, Opera etc. to include H.264 capability without having to pay any royalties to MPEG-LA ever. The only time an end-user has to effectively pay for H.264 is when they buy a new piece of hardware or want to download/stream content that the provider is charging for anyway (free content has been granted a free licence forever from the MPEG-LA). In both these cases, the part of the cost price attributable to paying for the H.264 licence is negligibly small, or in other words, if H.264 were completely free, it wouldn't save you any money.

Obviously for you, free trumps everything, even if the other thing is so cheap it's effectively free anyway. I'd rather pay a negligibly small amount of money for quality, than have shit for free.

H.264 has nothing to do with an open web. Ask Vint Cerf what an open web is, he'll tell you it's a standard anyone can code to. Even if you want to charge for your code, that's OK.

The rest of the post is irrelevant posturing on an anti-patnet/anti-Apple stance. It's also completely incorrect on why there isn't a single codec called out for video. But we have been over that before and you keep espousing the false anti-Apple version. Hopeless troll is all you are.

So what you are saying is that you do not believe in the model of the web (free, open, royalty-free, whatever you want to call it)? Because that's what you are saying. You can't imagine any way a free, open, royalty-free standard can be absolutely necessary for something to thrive.


This has got nothing to do with source code. It's about licensing. It's using the techniques described in the patents covering H264 that costs money.


No, an open web does.


Those are not the alternatives, but nice try.

Again, it's not about source code. It's about standards. The open web is based on open, royalty-free standards. H264 is in direct violation of this basic principle.


No, it is just you who are unable to counter the facts at hand, so you desperately try to dodge and weave.

You're just as uninspired in thought as the "free market economists".

I'll say it again, since you seem to ignore the FACTS for your so-called "principle".

First, neither WebM nor H.264 are open standards. They are both proprietary, owned and developed by a single entity. WebM is owned and developed by Google, and H.264 is owned and developed by MPEG-LA.

Second, WebM is guaranteed to be free to end users and content providers forever. Well, not forever. It can't be free to end users OR content providers if it's destroyed in patent court. And we see here that that is a real risk, and in fact is likely to happen. Full stop.

Meanwhile, H.264 is unlikely to be killed in court. We don't have to worry about that. We as end users are also guaranteed to be able to use it for FREE... FOREVER. Period.

Content providers, however, have only been granted temporary free use of the codec (until 2014 at the earliest). There's some risk that content providers will have to pay royalties at some point in time after 2014.

Now here's the kicker.

The RISK that WebM will at some point not be free (due to being killed in patent court) is far greater than the risk that H.264 might at some point not be free (but only to developers). That makes H.264 better than. And that's not even considering performance and quality.

So you can take your principles and shove it. I prefer better performance and less risk.

This is where your argument falls flat on its face. WebM will no longer be free when it's killed in patent court, will it?

There's no evidence whatsoever that it violates any patents. In fact, the MPEG-LA failed to find any patents, so they tried (and failed, it seems) to gather a patent pool for VP8 instead.

On2 clearly did a thorough job to avoid any patent infringements with VP8, and Google's lawyers obviously scrutinized the codec as well. In fact, Google probably owns quite a few patents that may be violated by H264!

I agree completely. H264 is not open, and WebM is not a standard.


This is wrong. WebM is owned and developed by the open-source WebM project. But that is really irrelevant, because anyone is free to take WebM, fork it, and create a new project without any input from anyone else (such as Google).


As we see here, no one has been able to find any infringements. The MPEG-LA eventually had to give up, and decided to call for patents for a VP8 patent pool instead. But it looks like that failed too.

You seem to ignore the fact that On2's buisness revolved around owning patents, and not infringing upon patents owned by others.


Nope.


Wrong. The fact that H264 is closed and incompatible with an open web means that it loses by default.

Take your vague FUD and shove it. There is no evidence of any infringement.

Again with the propaganda.

A couple months ago I listened to Vinton Cerf speak of the necessity of the open web in supporting business cases for participating companies. That vendors that brought good solutions to the web infrastructure should be economically rewarded, but that they should do so on the level playing field of open standards.

The guy that invented the internet! And the IETF who are as inclusive and as open as they get! The guy that's a Google Fellow, y'know he works as an evangelist for the company that's providing WebM, and his official company line contradicts your stance on open standards. He doesn't speak the same language as you.

Maybe you should actually try to listen to him sometime.

Care to elaborate?

Also, you seem to know more about On2's business than is available to the general public. Do you care to elaborate on that connection?

There's no consensus whatsoever that WebM is safe from patent challenges. Word on the street has long said otherwise.


You really sound like someone who has lost the argument, who has more riding on this than principle, who is trying to obfuscate to save your efforts to misinform.

It's a simple fact. H264 is closed. Closed technologies can never become part of any open web standard.


It's too bad, then, that H264 is not an open standard.

The MPEG-LA is an industry cartel which can set the price to whatever suits them. If they manage to kill off WebM, there will be no reason not to screw everyone up the backside.


I don't know more about On2's business than anyone who isn't completely clueless. On2's business model revolved around selling video technology. It goes without saying that they needed to be careful to avoid infringing on patents, knowing about cartels like MPEG-LA and their eagerness to use any means necessary to kill off competition.


Even the x264 guy showed how On2 took specific measures to avoid patents related to H264. In addition to that, there's Google's army of lawyers. Two companies have investigated patents, and found that VP8 did not violate any.

Furthermore, the MPEG-LA has failed to produce any specific examples, and eventually had to give up. Their last desperate attempt was to set up a patent pool to get other people to come forward with patents that On2 and Google may have missed.

The patent pool seems to have been a failure as well.

And you have once again failed to address my points.

More made-up, non-established insike-fact. You are persistent in creating your own personal reality. How could anyone address untruth other than to call it so?



That's a bald faced lie. An open standard supports multiple complying implementations whether they are open or closed. That's the whole and only point.



No, the only thing that's too bad is your displayed incompetence when it comes to talking about open standards. It's so consistently wrong that:

Flat out, I an calling you a lying shill.

A disingenuous troll.

Your long and continued track record of ignoring the actual W3C, IEEE, ISO and industry-wide accepted definitions and practices can only indicate you have no intention of playing truthfully.

Anyone who's not completely clueless or completely dishonest knows that's not true. Price to end users for any internet video encoded with H.264 is free. Forever. We know that. You know that. Now be honest about it.

Exactly. Apple has more lawyers then anybody, but bullies usually pick on the small and weak, while leaving alone anybody who might stand up to them effectively.