You're acting like Mozilla and Opera are doing it for the sake of the Internet. They are a business like any other. It's to their benefit that it supports Theora because they don't want to pay licensing fees. Just like it serves Apple and Google's best interest for bandwidth concerns and iTunes.
Mozilla is not a "business like any other." Mozilla is a public benefit, non-profit organization whose only purpose is to advance the open web. If users can't use their data however they want because of licensing problems, then it's not really an Open web, now is it?
I support Apple on most everything and believe that they are honestly afraid of lawsuits, but I think they are going to end up shooting themselves in the foot for not supporting ogg formats in addition to mp4. Why can't they support both - Google is in Chrome. I understand that mp4 works well for large corporations and for certain applications. But Apple sells computers with one of the big sellers being able to easily author multimedia. When in 2011, when they start charging for MP4 video, even non-commercial or personal use will require $2,500 in fees. I cannot afford to pay $2,500 to post a few videos online and many will feel the same way. Guess what, Adobe has licensed MP4 for free for non-commercial use if you put it in Flash. So Apple is not getting rid of Flash, unless they support Ogg Theora as well as making it very hard for individuals to post videos that can be seen on a an iPhone without having to pay thousands of dollars.
Such a move would automatically put Firefox at the mercy of Apple since they can determine what level of support and integration Firefox users receive of a function as basic as playing video. It would also leave Linux users unsupported which while maybe not a large user base are still strong Firefox supporters. Even without relying on Apple, it would still leave Firefox relying on third-parties. As well, I believe Firefox is especially popular in European governments and I can certainly see pressure for certain security levels to have plug-ins disabled, which would put Firefox at a disadvantage compared to other browsers without these limitations. Plus, Firefox's userbase at greater than 20% browser share is not insignificant. The entire objective of video in HTML5 is to avoid the use of plug-ins to play video. To push 20%+ of internet users back to video plug-ins defeats the entire purpose of HTML5 video. For all these reasons, I can see why Mozilla would be reluctant to embrace the be quiet and use plug-ins point of view.
I can't see why Apple would do this. They have not done this to Mozilla before and it serves in their best interests to keep the web as open as possible in their battle with Microsoft.
As for the Linux users, I'm sure they will find a workaround for this as they always do in these types of situations. While there may be some circumstances where Firefox will be hurt, it would also seriously hurt the mobile industry which already has been using h.264 acceleration for some time. Apple for at least the past year has been planning for h.264 acceleration in their laptops and with Snow Leopard which has just come to fruition in the Macbooks with the 9400 and 9600.
Maybe Gruber has the best answer in having one file that is h.264 and one that is Theora. As of right now I see no easy answer. I can easily predict though that h.264 will win out. There are just too many companies invested in this already. Hopefully open source will be ahead in the next-gen codec wars or bandwidth will be less of a concern.
Mozilla is not a "business like any other." Mozilla is a public benefit, non-profit organization whose only purpose is to advance the open web. If users can't use their data however they want because of licensing problems, then it's not really an Open web, now is it?
I consider any non-profit organization a business even the Catholic church. Call me a pessimist, but virtually everyone in the world has an angle.
Like I said, I'm all for openness but they are many other factors that there are to consider. Companies cannot, at the drop of a dime, pull a 180 and ditch a format that they've been using for years. This is not a one year process. This will take years.
My main concern is not the mpeg vs Theora debate. I want to kill off Flash and Silverlight before they gain any larger foothold on the Net. They are far more dangerous in my eyes.
I want a Free to implement, to use , to create and to read and efficient format to publish video on the web
for ALL KIND OF DEVICES !
Cars, computers, mobile, phone, tiny watches and whatever coming !
I want it for Mozilla or apple or Nestlé !
And I'm fucking tired with patents trolls, the mpeg L.A extravagant prices and so on.
You are not for progress and free market, just to defend Apple at all cost. but Apple fears nothing here ! All is FINE for Apple.
Apple is a whole member of mpeg and is committing great technologies in mpeg4 and h264 for years.
So I fear nothing for me beloved precious jesus iphone or mac ! But I really want all navigators to read one format, one easy video format, because I'm tired of stupid flickr, ugly youtube, despicable dailymotion and slow to launch quicktime plugin and tiresome flash plugin.
And yeah, it would be legal to re-implement h264 AND distribute it in sourcecode AND binary form IN and OUT Mozilla Firefox or whatever commercial/Free/libre/proprietary/non-proprietary whatever software !
why ? because, that stupid "it's my property bouhouhouohuou" mpeg fiasco is now against innovation in the web space.
I do not ask the end of mpeg, I ask they give right to mozilla and others to reimplement freely their own implementation of h264 with no legal risks of patent wars and the right to distribute firefox to billions of people with it. just legalize binary distribution of ffmpeg/x264
jpeg2000 was a fiasco but at least, he had png and JPEG to put cute cats on the web !
I don't care all the rationalisation to protect crying fanboy apple, Leave Apple Alone ! ALL is fine for apple and no, neither ogg neither mozilla (or wikipedia) will hurt the Greatness that is Apple and Wonderful Quicktime (bless its name and code).
Money were well earned and will be earn for many years again. and h264 is not the end of video. (believe me.)
ho and yeah, theora is improved, to be "just enough" sufficient to use on the web. no internet tube will explode in a big crazy cataclysm.
"saying it would consume the world's Internet bandwidth due to its less sophisticated compression"
hilarious... ho the humanity... because we all know all the world read youtube with the h264 version OOOooof couuuurse... (or maybe the plain "old bad ugly" flv ? for many years with internet just fine in my garden.)
-
"there's no real problem for users to download a package of open source codec components for QuickTime or their media system playback of choice that enable Ogg Theora playback on non-mobile systems"
just "non-mobile systems" is NO SYSTEMS AT ALL !
it's ALL system or NONE.
-
"The only question now is who will deliver the best HTML 5 support, and how quickly the foot-draggers seeking to hold onto the past decade's proprietary technologies will be left behind.
"
I don't about your superior technology, ho you big Alien from Space !
I just care about EASINESS, Simplicity and STANDARD ! you know ! the fight you did to make possible to use a MACINTOSH !
Now I want the same fight to use firefox, fennec, opera, webkit or whatever to read standard video on Linux, Mac and crazy tiny watches !
if it's h264, then, ask FREE to use own made implementation and not patent threat from mpeg L.A
if it's thera, then ask decent support of it to microsoft , apple and google.
I don't care anything ELSE, apple will be just fine. don't worry, you big whiny baby.
H.264 is equally ulnerable to submarine patents. If someone has a patent on something in H.264, companies that use it can be sued.
I think this issue is over played. MPEG has been making codecs for 20 years, H.264 specifically has been active for 6 years. Submarine patents haven't been a serious problem for the MPEG group in all that time. As widely as H.264 has been adopted and used, if there were any serious patent problems they would have been revealed by this point.
Quote:
Google claims that H.264 is far-and-away more efficient than Ogg Theora, and that they can't possibly give users the same quality on YouTube without spending much more on bandwidth. However, direct comparisons between YouTube and Theora show no great difference.
I wouldn't trust Xiph as the source of this comparison.
Quote:
Finally, there is nothing implicit in Theora that make it hard to accelerate with hardware - it's just that it hasn't been done yet due to a lack of users. Mozilla's inclusion of Theora in Firefox 3.5 is one of the things that should help to change that.
It may not be technically difficult but there isn't much reason for any SOC manufactures to include it either. As Mozilla makes no hand held media devices, there is next to zero chance Firefox will help OGG Theora hardware acceleration.
Quote:
Also, it's important to note that Mozilla is all about the Open Web, and the Open Web should never be knowingly held beholden to patented formats.
MPEG-4 isn't a proprietary group. It consists of 350 companies, universities, and research groups. The license isn't corporate profit, it pays for research and development.
>MPEG-4 isn't a proprietary group. It consists of 350 companies, universities, and research groups. The license
>isn't corporate profit, it pays for research and development.
but it is a ugly patent covered stuff. and license price are very very expensive and refuse distribution of binary opensource reimplementation in software
the license is HUGE corporate profit of course, and it's nice, I mean, corporate profit paid me (and I give gifts thanks to that), it also allow university to participate in development
but it's not the FINAL GOAL of the WORLD.
we need open standard nice and free and efficient to finally solve the whole video mess on the Web.
Now that's out of the way - what a useless (political) squabble! The whole thing could be resolved if the H264 licensing fee was removed. That is where the battle should be fought. For a standard to be truly open and available it needs to be free to all.
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.
It's a really tough decision. H.264 may be technically superior, but it has such nasty licensing arrangement. I'd like not to have to pay someone to look at my own videos...
You pay to watch video every day.
Quote:
The licensing fees that are upcoming for H.264 in 2010/2011 are shocking. They treat web video as a broadcast medium. Nasty.
From what I understand the current license is up in 2010, but they have not fully decided the rules of the next license.
Quote:
It's the H.264 licensing body that needs to make decoding royalty free. However, everyone adopting H.264 at this rapid pace just allows them to charge what they want.
The research and development that went into H.264 wasn't free.
I wouldn't trust Xiph as the source of this comparison.
By all means, run it yourself. Greg listed his methodology!
Quote:
It may not be technically difficult but there isn't much reason for any SOC manufactures to include it either. As Mozilla makes no hand held media devices, there is next to zero chance Firefox will help OGG Theora hardware acceleration.
You might be surprised.
Quote:
MPEG-4 isn't a proprietary group. It consists of 350 companies, universities, and research groups. The license isn't corporate profit, it pays for research and development.
Doesn't matter what the money goes to - it matters that you have to pay to implement it. That just won't fly on the open web.
I consider any non-profit organization a business even the Catholic church. Call me a pessimist, but virtually everyone in the world has an angle.
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.
Now that's out of the way - what a useless (political) squabble! The whole thing could be resolved if the H264 licensing fee was removed. That is where the battle should be fought. For a standard to be truly open and available it needs to be free to all.
Technically, if this issue is to be decided, Microsoft will need to weigh in. Like it or not, Internet Explorer still has greater than 60% browser share. If HTML5 video ever has a hope of gaining enough momentum to displace Flash as the internet video conduit, Internet Explorer needs to be onboard. Even if they haven't implemented it yet, Microsoft could comment on whether they favour Theora, H.264 or some other alternative so that everyone else can move forward. Although I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft just decided to implement some type of WMV/VC-1 variation which would just mess everything up.
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.
I think this is a great debate to have and one of the best pieces appleinsider has ever written.
Don't get me wrong. I root for Mozilla as much as the next person. I am just not the trusting type.
As far as this debate is concerned I'm okay whichever way it goes as long as it's quick. The web is too divided as is. The last thing I want to see is Microsoft or Adobe control the web. They have already mucked it up.
Ultimately I hope that MPEG reduces its licensing fees just because of this debate.
Technically, if this issue is to be decided, Microsoft will need to weigh in. Like it or not, Internet Explorer still has greater than 60% browser share. If HTML5 video ever has a hope of gaining enough momentum to displace Flash as the internet video conduit, Internet Explorer needs to be onboard. Even if they haven't implemented it yet, Microsoft could comment on whether they favour Theora, H.264 or some other alternative so that everyone else can move forward. Although I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft just decided to implement some type of WMV/VC-1 variation which would just mess everything up.
I would think Microsoft would push Silverlight first which is why they haven't really supported HTML5 in IE8. I'm guessing that their second choice when all else fails would be h.264 since they already have a license for it and use it on the XBOX and Zune.
The research and development that went into H.264 wasn't free.
I don't think anybody is against paying for past and present r&d costs. Bu if that is all we had to cover I wonder what the true licensing fees would be. The wider the implementation the lower the cost, under that scenario.
Comments
You're acting like Mozilla and Opera are doing it for the sake of the Internet. They are a business like any other. It's to their benefit that it supports Theora because they don't want to pay licensing fees. Just like it serves Apple and Google's best interest for bandwidth concerns and iTunes.
Mozilla is not a "business like any other." Mozilla is a public benefit, non-profit organization whose only purpose is to advance the open web. If users can't use their data however they want because of licensing problems, then it's not really an Open web, now is it?
Such a move would automatically put Firefox at the mercy of Apple since they can determine what level of support and integration Firefox users receive of a function as basic as playing video. It would also leave Linux users unsupported which while maybe not a large user base are still strong Firefox supporters. Even without relying on Apple, it would still leave Firefox relying on third-parties. As well, I believe Firefox is especially popular in European governments and I can certainly see pressure for certain security levels to have plug-ins disabled, which would put Firefox at a disadvantage compared to other browsers without these limitations. Plus, Firefox's userbase at greater than 20% browser share is not insignificant. The entire objective of video in HTML5 is to avoid the use of plug-ins to play video. To push 20%+ of internet users back to video plug-ins defeats the entire purpose of HTML5 video. For all these reasons, I can see why Mozilla would be reluctant to embrace the be quiet and use plug-ins point of view.
I can't see why Apple would do this. They have not done this to Mozilla before and it serves in their best interests to keep the web as open as possible in their battle with Microsoft.
As for the Linux users, I'm sure they will find a workaround for this as they always do in these types of situations. While there may be some circumstances where Firefox will be hurt, it would also seriously hurt the mobile industry which already has been using h.264 acceleration for some time. Apple for at least the past year has been planning for h.264 acceleration in their laptops and with Snow Leopard which has just come to fruition in the Macbooks with the 9400 and 9600.
Maybe Gruber has the best answer in having one file that is h.264 and one that is Theora. As of right now I see no easy answer. I can easily predict though that h.264 will win out. There are just too many companies invested in this already. Hopefully open source will be ahead in the next-gen codec wars or bandwidth will be less of a concern.
You may make the statement that h.264 and Theora doesn't have a great deal of difference in efficiency but DiBona at Google believes differently.
Actually, the test I linked above was a response to what Chris DiBona claimed. Chris fell victim to the same misconceptions of Theora many others share.
As "Prince" has said it is best that Mozilla stay out and let users download QuickTime which most users already have.
Mozilla does not, and will not, support system codecs.
Let's be honest here also. Mozilla is for the Open Web but it is also for not paying for the h.264 license.
If H.264 was freely implementable, I'm sure we'd love to use it, because that's what the open web means!
Hopefully open source will be ahead in the next-gen codec wars or bandwidth will be less of a concern.
Bandwidth is not a concern now - that is a misconception.
Mozilla is not a "business like any other." Mozilla is a public benefit, non-profit organization whose only purpose is to advance the open web. If users can't use their data however they want because of licensing problems, then it's not really an Open web, now is it?
I consider any non-profit organization a business even the Catholic church. Call me a pessimist, but virtually everyone in the world has an angle.
Like I said, I'm all for openness but they are many other factors that there are to consider. Companies cannot, at the drop of a dime, pull a 180 and ditch a format that they've been using for years. This is not a one year process. This will take years.
My main concern is not the mpeg vs Theora debate. I want to kill off Flash and Silverlight before they gain any larger foothold on the Net. They are far more dangerous in my eyes.
nice explanation BUT I DON'T CARE !
I want a Free to implement, to use , to create and to read and efficient format to publish video on the web
for ALL KIND OF DEVICES !
Cars, computers, mobile, phone, tiny watches and whatever coming !
I want it for Mozilla or apple or Nestlé !
And I'm fucking tired with patents trolls, the mpeg L.A extravagant prices and so on.
You are not for progress and free market, just to defend Apple at all cost. but Apple fears nothing here ! All is FINE for Apple.
Apple is a whole member of mpeg and is committing great technologies in mpeg4 and h264 for years.
So I fear nothing for me beloved precious jesus iphone or mac ! But I really want all navigators to read one format, one easy video format, because I'm tired of stupid flickr, ugly youtube, despicable dailymotion and slow to launch quicktime plugin and tiresome flash plugin.
And yeah, it would be legal to re-implement h264 AND distribute it in sourcecode AND binary form IN and OUT Mozilla Firefox or whatever commercial/Free/libre/proprietary/non-proprietary whatever software !
why ? because, that stupid "it's my property bouhouhouohuou" mpeg fiasco is now against innovation in the web space.
I do not ask the end of mpeg, I ask they give right to mozilla and others to reimplement freely their own implementation of h264 with no legal risks of patent wars and the right to distribute firefox to billions of people with it. just legalize binary distribution of ffmpeg/x264
jpeg2000 was a fiasco but at least, he had png and JPEG to put cute cats on the web !
I don't care all the rationalisation to protect crying fanboy apple, Leave Apple Alone ! ALL is fine for apple and no, neither ogg neither mozilla (or wikipedia) will hurt the Greatness that is Apple and Wonderful Quicktime (bless its name and code).
Money were well earned and will be earn for many years again. and h264 is not the end of video. (believe me.)
ho and yeah, theora is improved, to be "just enough" sufficient to use on the web. no internet tube will explode in a big crazy cataclysm.
"saying it would consume the world's Internet bandwidth due to its less sophisticated compression"
hilarious... ho the humanity... because we all know all the world read youtube with the h264 version OOOooof couuuurse... (or maybe the plain "old bad ugly" flv ? for many years with internet just fine in my garden.)
-
"there's no real problem for users to download a package of open source codec components for QuickTime or their media system playback of choice that enable Ogg Theora playback on non-mobile systems"
just "non-mobile systems" is NO SYSTEMS AT ALL !
it's ALL system or NONE.
-
"The only question now is who will deliver the best HTML 5 support, and how quickly the foot-draggers seeking to hold onto the past decade's proprietary technologies will be left behind.
"
I don't about your superior technology, ho you big Alien from Space !
I just care about EASINESS, Simplicity and STANDARD ! you know ! the fight you did to make possible to use a MACINTOSH !
Now I want the same fight to use firefox, fennec, opera, webkit or whatever to read standard video on Linux, Mac and crazy tiny watches !
if it's h264, then, ask FREE to use own made implementation and not patent threat from mpeg L.A
if it's thera, then ask decent support of it to microsoft , apple and google.
I don't care anything ELSE, apple will be just fine. don't worry, you big whiny baby.
H.264 is equally ulnerable to submarine patents. If someone has a patent on something in H.264, companies that use it can be sued.
I think this issue is over played. MPEG has been making codecs for 20 years, H.264 specifically has been active for 6 years. Submarine patents haven't been a serious problem for the MPEG group in all that time. As widely as H.264 has been adopted and used, if there were any serious patent problems they would have been revealed by this point.
Google claims that H.264 is far-and-away more efficient than Ogg Theora, and that they can't possibly give users the same quality on YouTube without spending much more on bandwidth. However, direct comparisons between YouTube and Theora show no great difference.
I wouldn't trust Xiph as the source of this comparison.
Finally, there is nothing implicit in Theora that make it hard to accelerate with hardware - it's just that it hasn't been done yet due to a lack of users. Mozilla's inclusion of Theora in Firefox 3.5 is one of the things that should help to change that.
It may not be technically difficult but there isn't much reason for any SOC manufactures to include it either. As Mozilla makes no hand held media devices, there is next to zero chance Firefox will help OGG Theora hardware acceleration.
Also, it's important to note that Mozilla is all about the Open Web, and the Open Web should never be knowingly held beholden to patented formats.
MPEG-4 isn't a proprietary group. It consists of 350 companies, universities, and research groups. The license isn't corporate profit, it pays for research and development.
sigh, surely me and my iphone and 3 macs will be a pundit because I just want one nice standard video codec
ho silly me...
>isn't corporate profit, it pays for research and development.
but it is a ugly patent covered stuff. and license price are very very expensive and refuse distribution of binary opensource reimplementation in software
the license is HUGE corporate profit of course, and it's nice, I mean, corporate profit paid me (and I give gifts thanks to that), it also allow university to participate in development
but it's not the FINAL GOAL of the WORLD.
we need open standard nice and free and efficient to finally solve the whole video mess on the Web.
You should Love the Web, not the license body.
You should love the Web, not the codec
You should love the Web, not simply Apple.
Now that's out of the way - what a useless (political) squabble! The whole thing could be resolved if the H264 licensing fee was removed. That is where the battle should be fought. For a standard to be truly open and available it needs to be free to all.
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!
It's a really tough decision. H.264 may be technically superior, but it has such nasty licensing arrangement. I'd like not to have to pay someone to look at my own videos...
You pay to watch video every day.
The licensing fees that are upcoming for H.264 in 2010/2011 are shocking. They treat web video as a broadcast medium. Nasty.
From what I understand the current license is up in 2010, but they have not fully decided the rules of the next license.
It's the H.264 licensing body that needs to make decoding royalty free. However, everyone adopting H.264 at this rapid pace just allows them to charge what they want.
The research and development that went into H.264 wasn't free.
I wouldn't trust Xiph as the source of this comparison.
By all means, run it yourself. Greg listed his methodology!
It may not be technically difficult but there isn't much reason for any SOC manufactures to include it either. As Mozilla makes no hand held media devices, there is next to zero chance Firefox will help OGG Theora hardware acceleration.
You might be surprised.
MPEG-4 isn't a proprietary group. It consists of 350 companies, universities, and research groups. The license isn't corporate profit, it pays for research and development.
Doesn't matter what the money goes to - it matters that you have to pay to implement it. That just won't fly on the open web.
I consider any non-profit organization a business even the Catholic church. Call me a pessimist, but virtually everyone in the world has an angle.
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.
OK, now we officially hate MS even more!
Now that's out of the way - what a useless (political) squabble! The whole thing could be resolved if the H264 licensing fee was removed. That is where the battle should be fought. For a standard to be truly open and available it needs to be free to all.
Technically, if this issue is to be decided, Microsoft will need to weigh in. Like it or not, Internet Explorer still has greater than 60% browser share. If HTML5 video ever has a hope of gaining enough momentum to displace Flash as the internet video conduit, Internet Explorer needs to be onboard. Even if they haven't implemented it yet, Microsoft could comment on whether they favour Theora, H.264 or some other alternative so that everyone else can move forward. Although I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft just decided to implement some type of WMV/VC-1 variation which would just mess everything up.
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.
I think this is a great debate to have and one of the best pieces appleinsider has ever written.
Don't get me wrong. I root for Mozilla as much as the next person. I am just not the trusting type.
As far as this debate is concerned I'm okay whichever way it goes as long as it's quick. The web is too divided as is. The last thing I want to see is Microsoft or Adobe control the web. They have already mucked it up.
Ultimately I hope that MPEG reduces its licensing fees just because of this debate.
Technically, if this issue is to be decided, Microsoft will need to weigh in. Like it or not, Internet Explorer still has greater than 60% browser share. If HTML5 video ever has a hope of gaining enough momentum to displace Flash as the internet video conduit, Internet Explorer needs to be onboard. Even if they haven't implemented it yet, Microsoft could comment on whether they favour Theora, H.264 or some other alternative so that everyone else can move forward. Although I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft just decided to implement some type of WMV/VC-1 variation which would just mess everything up.
I would think Microsoft would push Silverlight first which is why they haven't really supported HTML5 in IE8. I'm guessing that their second choice when all else fails would be h.264 since they already have a license for it and use it on the XBOX and Zune.
The research and development that went into H.264 wasn't free.
I don't think anybody is against paying for past and present r&d costs. Bu if that is all we had to cover I wonder what the true licensing fees would be. The wider the implementation the lower the cost, under that scenario.