This is an excellent article - it really does reinforce my dislike for Microsoft and the sharp practices they have employed over the last 20 years or so. Having worked in IT for the last 20 years I at last can see a glimmer of hope that the status quo might be changing and we can say goodbye to the nightmare that has been Windows as the dominant force in IT.
Despite owning Macs and technically being an Apple supporter, I can't help but feel the article takes an extremely Apple cheerleading slant to reporting the story that has been covered by many other tech websites.
Welcome to the world of Prince McLean.
The truth is Apple does it their way cause the like it that way, and they like control. I thought we've been over this before?
Leave the codec unspecified, as with the IMG tag. This will enable competition and encourage continued innovation. If they fix on one format only, then vendors will simply implement that and be done with it, and no pressure on them to keep innovating.
1) Either Theora or H.264 become the official standard. Regardless of which is chosen, Mozilla and Opera implement only Theora, Google both and Apple only H.264 and Microsoft none
2) Nothing is set in the standard, and the same happens as above
In other words, it will not matter what is in the standard or whether something is in the standard at all.
Websites will either have only Flash or only H.264 or only Theora or combinations of these three. Few will go with Theora only. Flash-only sites will require a plugin everywhere (which will suck everywhere but in IE and Windows). H.264-only sites will require a plugin with Mozilla and Linux and IE. Sites that want to be nice to their visitors will have at least two versions.
Maybe doing nothing is the best, but I think if the standard contained the clause it should be either Theora or h.264 that would standardize things a little bit.
Don't forget: all the webmasters may own a Mac, but they are Linux-faithful. Stallman will start another burn-all-GIFS campaign, and we'll be deadlocked for another 5-10 years.
So why doesn't the HTML 5 standard simply state that browsers must support either H264 or Theora (or both) and encourage web sites to serve both? That way everybody (other than maybe Microsoft and Adobe) is happy. Chrome plays both, Safari users can install XiphQT. If web sites decide they can't be bothered to support Firefox and Opera's market share they'll drop Theora. Conversely, if the H264 licensing authority imposes prohibitive terms come 2011 or 2013 or whenever, then sites can drop H264. In the meantime, users get maximum compatibility.
OK, then what's Apple's excuse for not backing Ogg Vorbis in HTML5? None of the same arguments apply. Vorbis is not obsolete and its a superior codec to MP3. The reason is Apple is at best opportunistic with open standards. They don't even support Open Document in iWork.
Because they're championing AAC, which is better than either?
So why doesn't the HTML 5 standard simply state that browsers must support either H264 or Theora (or both) and encourage web sites to serve both? That way everybody (other than maybe Microsoft and Adobe) is happy. Chrome plays both, Safari users can install XiphQT. If web sites decide they can't be bothered to support Firefox and Opera's market share they'll drop Theora. Conversely, if the H264 licensing authority imposes prohibitive terms come 2011 or 2013 or whenever, then sites can drop H264. In the meantime, users get maximum compatibility.
They can already do that. Sites can put in both video tags and by using the User Agent or other means call H.264 for WebKit, Theora for Gecko or even Flash for Trident. The problem isn?t the multiple options ?because we do have PNG, JPEG, GIF, etc,? the problem with requiring sites encode in multiple formats. It looks that many will do just that, but that is workaround, not a solution.
... standard doesn't need to specify an official codec. There's no official codec for graphics; web developers can use JPEG, GIF, PNG, or any other format. If users can't see the image, they might need to load a helper plugin. There is no problem related to lacking an official graphics format.
This is the most important point of the article. If browsers support a generalized video/audio OS infrastructure, then there is no longer a need to support anything directly in the browser.
For instance, every Windows box supports a boatload of audio and video codecs via the standard multimedia APIs (which Media Player wraps around.) And if anything is missing, new codecs can be installed into the OS, where all apps can see and use them.
Similarly, every Mac has a boatload of codecs via its multimedia APIs (which tie to the underlying Quicktime infrastructure.) Similarly, new codecs can be added to the OS, and applications will then be able to use them.
I don't know what the deal is with Linux, but if there isn't a similar multimedia architecture, somebody really should develop one.
With a browser designed to use OS-standard multimedia APIs, the whole argument becomes moot. Firefox no longer has to pay license fees for its codecs, it will just use what the OS provides.
And, of course, this in no way removes the possibility of using a plugin to provide something that is otherwise unavailable - and this doesn't break use of <video>. Just like third party Java plugins can tap the <applet> tag and not need to use <embed>, so can audio and video plugins.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoserHead
H.264 is equally vulnerable to submarine patents. If someone has a patent on something in H.264, companies that use it can be sued.
Of course, but if someone tries attacking H.264, they also attack some of the biggest players in the business, like Sony and Disney (since H.264 is what Blu-Ray uses.)
Theora doesn't have any such big-muscled supporters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melchior
the solution of installing plugins leaves exactly where we are today and what the "<video>" tag is trying to solve.
Not exactly the same.
A video-specific plugin that provides a codec for a generalized player is easier to implement and use than an <embed> object that provides the entire player. The video-plugin can be ignored by content providers - they just provide content in a given format and let the browser decide which plugin to use (or to use none, if it's supported internally). Using <embeds>, the content provider usually needs to know all kinds of ugly details about the player and the plugin that provides it.
It also means the user doesn't have to learn several different user interfaces for the videos, since the plugin only has to provide the codec, not the entire player.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbwi
Just like Bluray won over night, so will OGG!
That's really amusing, since Blu-Ray uses H.264 for its content.
And BD hardly won "overnight". It was a long struggle, backed (both politically and financially) by some very large mega-corporations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii
Leave the codec unspecified, as with the IMG tag. This will enable competition and encourage continued innovation. If they fix on one format only, then vendors will simply implement that and be done with it, and no pressure on them to keep innovating.
Bingo! Exactly like how it is with <img> tags. Today, browsers have support for PNG, but dropped XPM (which was in some of the oldest browsers.) This happens based on what people want/need, without fanfare and without most people even noticing.
HTML 5's <video> and <audio> tags sets up the much-needed infrastructure for this to happen, but we really don't want it to go beyond that.
Where would the web be if the HTML standards mandated all images be in XPM format, simply because it was open and popular at the time of the first browsers? Similarly, we don't want it to mandate any audio or video formats - what we're using today will certainly be obsoleted by other formats in the future, and browser developers shouldn't be forced to violate standards in order to support them.
It begs the question, why there is no effort to get a 'round table' discussion between all the concerned parties to decide on the easiest and best way provide video for the end user.
I hope this means Flash dies! Maybe then I could uninstall all Adobe software from my computer...
First let?s reduce Flash?s dominance. Unless there a secure way to embed dynamic adverts, keep the average person from figuring out how to DL the video I don?t see most sites moving to any HTML5 for their video streaming. Right now it looks the best chance to shake Adobe?s Flash dominance is MS? Silverlight.
Quote:
Originally Posted by igamogam
It begs the question, why there is no effort to get a 'round table' discussion between all the concerned parties to decide on the easiest and best way provide video for the end user.
That is what?s happened here. We have different groups with different legitimate reasons for making different choices. Because of the internet and the nature of this particular subject we don?t the typical symposium to discuss the issue thoroughly.
I agree this is the most logical and most likely compromise. This compromise will work fine on desktops and notebooks. But it will not work for mobile devices. Because of this h.264 will become the dominant standard.
Mozilla and Xiph will not want this type of compromise because mobile devices are the fastest growing internet devices. Mozilla has no influence on mobile devices and none can play Theora. For the hundreds of millions of mobile devices h.264 is the only option. So why should most websites bother with Theora at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shamino
A video-specific plugin that provides a codec for a generalized player is easier to implement and use than an <embed> object that provides the entire player. The video-plugin can be ignored by content providers - they just provide content in a given format and let the browser decide which plugin to use (or to use none, if it's supported internally). Using <embeds>, the content provider usually needs to know all kinds of ugly details about the player and the plugin that provides it.
HTML 5's <video> and <audio> tags sets up the much-needed infrastructure for this to happen, but we really don't want it to go beyond that.
I agree this is the most logical and most likely compromise. This compromise will work fine on desktops and notebooks. But it will not work for mobile devices. Because of this h.264 will become the dominant standard.
Mozilla and Xiph will not want this type of compromise because mobile devices are the fastest growing internet devices. Mozilla has no influence on mobile devices and none can play Theora. For the hundreds of millions of mobile devices h.264 is the only option. So why should most websites bother with Theora at all.
Nokia is in the H.264 camp and it appears that Mozilla needs Nokia in order to get mobile Firefox (Fennec) onto the platform. Could they include a default plugin for Nokia phones running Fennec so that HTML 5 video tags will play H.264 natively?
I don't even see the point of arguing one way or the other. The standard shouldn't be pushing any one particular video codec/format and both should be supported by default. That, and Ogg Theora really is the terrible choice of the two, even though such a statement is deeply offensive to the open source community. W3C needs to stick to defining how we present the video, not what video we present...
Our audited financials are available online. We try to be as open about what we do as possible. Our angle is simple: build the open web, and make sure we can continue to build it for years to come.
The need to specify a single codec is not required unless you have some political axe to grind. Certainly not to force theora to be the one true codec in HTML 5 when h.264 finally has a bit of momentum going. If you don't want h.264 for licensing reasons, that's fine. Then the standard, as currently written, should be just fine for Mozilla as it is for Apple.
All are free to implement the codecs they wish natively and it'll end up being two for Chrome and one each for Apple, Mozilla and Opera.
That seems more "open" than a single mandated codec because the market will decide which the dominant codec will be.
1. The article said, "Mozilla's entire Firefox business model revolves around Google paying it around $50 million a year to direct search queries its way." I might ask, whose search do we see in the Safari toolbar?
2. In this whole affair, is not Apple's firm stand, refusing to negotiate on ANY terms, as obstructionist as Microsoft?
Please oh please read the OTHER specs of HTML5. It, along with CSS3, offers huge performance benefits, website accessibility gains, and other good, for website visitors (and might I add, for website developers, of which I am one - admitted conflict of interest). To have the browser manufacturers disagree and delay HTML5 implementation well into the teens or twentys is a true heartbreak.
All I can say is holy crap this article should *not* have been published on Apple Insider.
I like Dan/Prince's article and actually agree with pretty much every assertion made here but ...
I'm not stupid enough to think this is not a highly inflammatory, emotional, and slanted article that is really, really out of place here. I thought the Ars article this morning (the "pro" Ogg article), was biased, but this one makes that one read like a scientific paper.
I personally happen to agree with Dan's slant 100% but Apple Insider usually tries to be balanced doesn't it? This is like walking into a bar on the bad side of town and calling the biggest biker you see a sissy boy or something.
Yikes!
Wise words - couldn't agree more. I read the whole thing but constantly felt like I wasn't getting the "other half" of the story, despite it being a blinking long article. But, I must say, I do not prefer H.264. For relatively small video files, sure, but I've found that when you get into really high quality, really high GB sizes (like 7+, which demand lots of crunching) for backups of Bluray movies, the performance of H.264 leaves more to be desired. I've been using the VC-1 codec (by that evil Microsoft, oh no!) and it really is fantastic and plays without any hitches on players that support it. For all those who are demanding that there be "one standard to rule them all" how does that foster innovation? Free markets and competition best foster free-flowing ideas and innovation, not some dictatorial consortium of companies or standards group. I need only to point to VESA and say look how long its taken them to develop, implement, and market the successor to DVI, which is DisplayPort, and it really hasn't taken off by anyone's standards. By VESA's own laggard pace, its allowed (to its own detriment as well as consumers') HDMI to spill over into the computer industry, where it just does not belong. Companies or groups or individuals will always have competing standards, that's just the way it is, and if any one of those thinks it can benefit from pushing its own standard, it will do so. Apple is no different, and even though it touts various open-source standards, open-source in and of itself is Apple's standard. AAC was primarily, and continues to be, trumpeted by Apple through iTunes (because of which it might as well be referred to as the "Apple Audio Codec"). The primary proliferate of H.264 could very well become Apple as well (their persuasion of Google/YouTube is one such example); it remains to be seen. Apple has leveraged and wielded these open-sources as weapons for competitive gain, which makes it no better than advocates of closed-source alternative standards.
Comments
Its really an exciting time.
Despite owning Macs and technically being an Apple supporter, I can't help but feel the article takes an extremely Apple cheerleading slant to reporting the story that has been covered by many other tech websites.
Welcome to the world of Prince McLean.
The truth is Apple does it their way cause the like it that way, and they like control. I thought we've been over this before?
1) Either Theora or H.264 become the official standard. Regardless of which is chosen, Mozilla and Opera implement only Theora, Google both and Apple only H.264 and Microsoft none
2) Nothing is set in the standard, and the same happens as above
In other words, it will not matter what is in the standard or whether something is in the standard at all.
Websites will either have only Flash or only H.264 or only Theora or combinations of these three. Few will go with Theora only. Flash-only sites will require a plugin everywhere (which will suck everywhere but in IE and Windows). H.264-only sites will require a plugin with Mozilla and Linux and IE. Sites that want to be nice to their visitors will have at least two versions.
Maybe doing nothing is the best, but I think if the standard contained the clause it should be either Theora or h.264 that would standardize things a little bit.
OK, then what's Apple's excuse for not backing Ogg Vorbis in HTML5? None of the same arguments apply. Vorbis is not obsolete and its a superior codec to MP3. The reason is Apple is at best opportunistic with open standards. They don't even support Open Document in iWork.
Because they're championing AAC, which is better than either?
So why doesn't the HTML 5 standard simply state that browsers must support either H264 or Theora (or both) and encourage web sites to serve both? That way everybody (other than maybe Microsoft and Adobe) is happy. Chrome plays both, Safari users can install XiphQT. If web sites decide they can't be bothered to support Firefox and Opera's market share they'll drop Theora. Conversely, if the H264 licensing authority imposes prohibitive terms come 2011 or 2013 or whenever, then sites can drop H264. In the meantime, users get maximum compatibility.
They can already do that. Sites can put in both video tags and by using the User Agent or other means call H.264 for WebKit, Theora for Gecko or even Flash for Trident. The problem isn?t the multiple options ?because we do have PNG, JPEG, GIF, etc,? the problem with requiring sites encode in multiple formats. It looks that many will do just that, but that is workaround, not a solution.
... standard doesn't need to specify an official codec. There's no official codec for graphics; web developers can use JPEG, GIF, PNG, or any other format. If users can't see the image, they might need to load a helper plugin. There is no problem related to lacking an official graphics format.
This is the most important point of the article. If browsers support a generalized video/audio OS infrastructure, then there is no longer a need to support anything directly in the browser.
For instance, every Windows box supports a boatload of audio and video codecs via the standard multimedia APIs (which Media Player wraps around.) And if anything is missing, new codecs can be installed into the OS, where all apps can see and use them.
Similarly, every Mac has a boatload of codecs via its multimedia APIs (which tie to the underlying Quicktime infrastructure.) Similarly, new codecs can be added to the OS, and applications will then be able to use them.
I don't know what the deal is with Linux, but if there isn't a similar multimedia architecture, somebody really should develop one.
With a browser designed to use OS-standard multimedia APIs, the whole argument becomes moot. Firefox no longer has to pay license fees for its codecs, it will just use what the OS provides.
And, of course, this in no way removes the possibility of using a plugin to provide something that is otherwise unavailable - and this doesn't break use of <video>. Just like third party Java plugins can tap the <applet> tag and not need to use <embed>, so can audio and video plugins.
H.264 is equally vulnerable to submarine patents. If someone has a patent on something in H.264, companies that use it can be sued.
Of course, but if someone tries attacking H.264, they also attack some of the biggest players in the business, like Sony and Disney (since H.264 is what Blu-Ray uses.)
Theora doesn't have any such big-muscled supporters.
the solution of installing plugins leaves exactly where we are today and what the "<video>" tag is trying to solve.
Not exactly the same.
A video-specific plugin that provides a codec for a generalized player is easier to implement and use than an <embed> object that provides the entire player. The video-plugin can be ignored by content providers - they just provide content in a given format and let the browser decide which plugin to use (or to use none, if it's supported internally). Using <embeds>, the content provider usually needs to know all kinds of ugly details about the player and the plugin that provides it.
It also means the user doesn't have to learn several different user interfaces for the videos, since the plugin only has to provide the codec, not the entire player.
Just like Bluray won over night, so will OGG!
That's really amusing, since Blu-Ray uses H.264 for its content.
And BD hardly won "overnight". It was a long struggle, backed (both politically and financially) by some very large mega-corporations.
Leave the codec unspecified, as with the IMG tag. This will enable competition and encourage continued innovation. If they fix on one format only, then vendors will simply implement that and be done with it, and no pressure on them to keep innovating.
Bingo! Exactly like how it is with <img> tags. Today, browsers have support for PNG, but dropped XPM (which was in some of the oldest browsers.) This happens based on what people want/need, without fanfare and without most people even noticing.
HTML 5's <video> and <audio> tags sets up the much-needed infrastructure for this to happen, but we really don't want it to go beyond that.
Where would the web be if the HTML standards mandated all images be in XPM format, simply because it was open and popular at the time of the first browsers? Similarly, we don't want it to mandate any audio or video formats - what we're using today will certainly be obsoleted by other formats in the future, and browser developers shouldn't be forced to violate standards in order to support them.
It begs the question, why there is no effort to get a 'round table' discussion between all the concerned parties to decide on the easiest and best way provide video for the end user.
I hope this means Flash dies! Maybe then I could uninstall all Adobe software from my computer...
First let?s reduce Flash?s dominance. Unless there a secure way to embed dynamic adverts, keep the average person from figuring out how to DL the video I don?t see most sites moving to any HTML5 for their video streaming. Right now it looks the best chance to shake Adobe?s Flash dominance is MS? Silverlight.
It begs the question, why there is no effort to get a 'round table' discussion between all the concerned parties to decide on the easiest and best way provide video for the end user.
That is what?s happened here. We have different groups with different legitimate reasons for making different choices. Because of the internet and the nature of this particular subject we don?t the typical symposium to discuss the issue thoroughly.
Mozilla and Xiph will not want this type of compromise because mobile devices are the fastest growing internet devices. Mozilla has no influence on mobile devices and none can play Theora. For the hundreds of millions of mobile devices h.264 is the only option. So why should most websites bother with Theora at all.
A video-specific plugin that provides a codec for a generalized player is easier to implement and use than an <embed> object that provides the entire player. The video-plugin can be ignored by content providers - they just provide content in a given format and let the browser decide which plugin to use (or to use none, if it's supported internally). Using <embeds>, the content provider usually needs to know all kinds of ugly details about the player and the plugin that provides it.
HTML 5's <video> and <audio> tags sets up the much-needed infrastructure for this to happen, but we really don't want it to go beyond that.
I agree this is the most logical and most likely compromise. This compromise will work fine on desktops and notebooks. But it will not work for mobile devices. Because of this h.264 will become the dominant standard.
Mozilla and Xiph will not want this type of compromise because mobile devices are the fastest growing internet devices. Mozilla has no influence on mobile devices and none can play Theora. For the hundreds of millions of mobile devices h.264 is the only option. So why should most websites bother with Theora at all.
Nokia is in the H.264 camp and it appears that Mozilla needs Nokia in order to get mobile Firefox (Fennec) onto the platform. Could they include a default plugin for Nokia phones running Fennec so that HTML 5 video tags will play H.264 natively?
All I can say is holy crap this article should *not* have been published on Apple Insider.
I agree but for a different reason. It'll bring the freetard brigade here en masse to defend ogg theora.
Because it's okay to force standards on others as long as it's "free".
<video> is just fine given that <img> has been just fine.
Our audited financials are available online. We try to be as open about what we do as possible. Our angle is simple: build the open web, and make sure we can continue to build it for years to come.
The need to specify a single codec is not required unless you have some political axe to grind. Certainly not to force theora to be the one true codec in HTML 5 when h.264 finally has a bit of momentum going. If you don't want h.264 for licensing reasons, that's fine. Then the standard, as currently written, should be just fine for Mozilla as it is for Apple.
All are free to implement the codecs they wish natively and it'll end up being two for Chrome and one each for Apple, Mozilla and Opera.
That seems more "open" than a single mandated codec because the market will decide which the dominant codec will be.
At the same time developing Firefox costs money and someone has to pay the bills.
That would be Google.
1. The article said, "Mozilla's entire Firefox business model revolves around Google paying it around $50 million a year to direct search queries its way." I might ask, whose search do we see in the Safari toolbar?
2. In this whole affair, is not Apple's firm stand, refusing to negotiate on ANY terms, as obstructionist as Microsoft?
Please oh please read the OTHER specs of HTML5. It, along with CSS3, offers huge performance benefits, website accessibility gains, and other good, for website visitors (and might I add, for website developers, of which I am one - admitted conflict of interest). To have the browser manufacturers disagree and delay HTML5 implementation well into the teens or twentys is a true heartbreak.
All I can say is holy crap this article should *not* have been published on Apple Insider.
I like Dan/Prince's article and actually agree with pretty much every assertion made here but ...
I'm not stupid enough to think this is not a highly inflammatory, emotional, and slanted article that is really, really out of place here. I thought the Ars article this morning (the "pro" Ogg article), was biased, but this one makes that one read like a scientific paper.
I personally happen to agree with Dan's slant 100% but Apple Insider usually tries to be balanced doesn't it? This is like walking into a bar on the bad side of town and calling the biggest biker you see a sissy boy or something.
Yikes!
Wise words - couldn't agree more. I read the whole thing but constantly felt like I wasn't getting the "other half" of the story, despite it being a blinking long article. But, I must say, I do not prefer H.264. For relatively small video files, sure, but I've found that when you get into really high quality, really high GB sizes (like 7+, which demand lots of crunching) for backups of Bluray movies, the performance of H.264 leaves more to be desired. I've been using the VC-1 codec (by that evil Microsoft, oh no!) and it really is fantastic and plays without any hitches on players that support it. For all those who are demanding that there be "one standard to rule them all" how does that foster innovation? Free markets and competition best foster free-flowing ideas and innovation, not some dictatorial consortium of companies or standards group. I need only to point to VESA and say look how long its taken them to develop, implement, and market the successor to DVI, which is DisplayPort, and it really hasn't taken off by anyone's standards. By VESA's own laggard pace, its allowed (to its own detriment as well as consumers') HDMI to spill over into the computer industry, where it just does not belong. Companies or groups or individuals will always have competing standards, that's just the way it is, and if any one of those thinks it can benefit from pushing its own standard, it will do so. Apple is no different, and even though it touts various open-source standards, open-source in and of itself is Apple's standard. AAC was primarily, and continues to be, trumpeted by Apple through iTunes (because of which it might as well be referred to as the "Apple Audio Codec"). The primary proliferate of H.264 could very well become Apple as well (their persuasion of Google/YouTube is one such example); it remains to be seen. Apple has leveraged and wielded these open-sources as weapons for competitive gain, which makes it no better than advocates of closed-source alternative standards.
My $.02