As others have mentioned there is only one major issue - YouTube. If Google pulled h.264 from YouTube, that would hurt Apple's mobile strategy. However I don't think Google can get away with it. That would bring in the Feds and Google would certainly lose that battle. Either by having to keep h.264 or by YouTube being displaced by another company while the legal battle drags out.
Assuming that YouTube remains compatible with h.264 nothing else matters. The only remaining issue is how much effort content publishers are willing to offer for reaching the widest possible audience. They will probably continue as they are now by offering various formats and Flash as a fall back.
If I stole diamonds and gave them away to someone who then gave me data from which I made money I'd still be earning from my theft! I'd still be a thief and subject to the law of the land.
Stealing diamonds is a criminal act, stealing code is a civil matter.
Ads... and serving up as many as possible, on as many platforms and content as possible.
Android
Was only developed and released free to serve up mobile ads. (period). Even developers acknowledge this fact, considering that the Marketplace doesn't seem to be working well for developers that would like to be paid outright for their efforts.
Search, Books, Services, Maps, Gmail, etc... is ALL about ads, nothing to think that the WebM ploy is about anything else BUT ads.
WebM
When released and integrated with their own devices, without a doubt, will have a Java-based layer to overlay ads. And surely the proposed WebM Plugin will be the same as Flash, but just different enough to get out of a patent dispute with Adobe.
You think for a moment that Google embraced Adobe and Flash, integrated it into Chrome and Android, without "looking under the hood"(?), or getting something other than a "selling point"?
WebM Plugin
This is seriously sinister, since it would allow Google to even serve ads overlayed on content that they are not serving on their own servers/services, since the layer code is built into the plugin.
Think: Vimeo, Facebook, or your own website's videos being overlayed with ads because the WebM plug-in is needed/installed. This without needing the consent of the owner of the video or the server publishing it, since Google received the consent to do so, by the end-user accepting the EULA when they installed the WebM plugin. Not to forget, but Google Analytics will also be built into the plugin, naturally, for it to be able to work properly.
At the moment, I doubt Google would try this trickery with H264, and besides they don't need to, because Adobe's Flash takes care of that for them with their wrapper.
NOTE: fact is that Google and many others are working on a way to overlay HTML5-H264 videos with ads anyway. One way or another, HTML5 video will have ads, and there's nothing anyone can do about that.
There is no such thing as "free". There are and always will be strings attached. And no, I'm not wearing a tin-hat or thinking conspiracy. Actually, you have to see this move by Google as doing good business and keeping focused: sell and deliver more ads!
What ever seems to forget is Crome is based on Apple's Webkit. Sure Apple made Webkit opensource but don't surprised when Apple takes Webkit back. Beside what will Google do when Webkit includes HRML5 in Webkit? Drop Webkit?
At the moment, I doubt Google would try this trickery with H264, and besides they don't need to, because Adobe's Flash takes care of that for them with their wrapper.
The irony...Adobe Flash will become the new savior for Mac users.
This has absolutely nothing to do with Google not wanting to pay licensing fees for H.264 and Google is absolutely lying when it says it does. They are also lying when they say they are concerned about the affect on innovation. And they are lying when they say they care anything about open source.
This is about two things. First, they are propping up Flash because they believe the demise of Flash gives others a competitive advantage over them. Second, they want to control video on the Web and don't really care how wide a swath they lay waste to in achieving that goal. Their plugin strategy is a giant step backward and a giant step away from an open Web, free of proprietary plugins.
The whole open source thing is just a ruse, a diversion, and the open source community consists of a large number of vocal people who are easily manipulated by the symbols of open source.
Here's some food for thought. H.264 is an open standard. WebM isn't an open standard at all, it's completely controlled by Google. Now, which of these is really more open? WebM is essentially a proprietary technology.
The intent to do anything doesn't mean you will, so why not let google try. In the process they could create some useful change even if it is something like encouraging the removal of all royalties for h.264. Or who knows perhaps google will create the format needed for the digital blu-ray files needed to fulfill Apple etc intent to kill physical disks
As long as everyone else is free to choice what they want to use let Google have their go on this.
Couple of early misconceptions. First, Google used the term 'plugin' a bit out of context. What they're talking about is making an installer to make the WebM codec available to Safari and IE through QuickTime and DirectShow. As I'm sure you guys know, Safari and IE take a lot more liberal approach to HTML5 video, playing what the user has installed. Firefox, Chrome, and Google only play what the browser makers allow. So effectively, Google is taking advantage of something in others that it won't allow in it's own browser to push it's own agenda with WebM.
But on the positive side, what that does mean is that these aren't really 'plugins' as far as the web page knows. As far as the HTML5 capabilities of the browser to do all the neat stuff we've been seeing, WebM would be just as native as H.264 (minus platform hardware acceleration)
Now, Firefox, which does have more market share than Chrome and Safari combined, can *only* play WebM/Theora natively. It (like Chrome and Opera) does NOT take advantage of the codecs already licensed by Apple and Microsoft and cannot play back H.264. Ever. On any platform. What Microsoft has released actually IS a plugin, basically bypassing HTML 5 and replacing it with an instance of Windows MediaPlayer, just as much an island on the page as Flash is.
I can see the point of both sides, but the problem is that both sides ignore the *good* points that the other side makes. So many words have been spilled out of this, it's a real shame for me, a web developer dealing in video, that they have been spilled with so little objectivity. Both codecs are good for different reasons. I wish that all the players had taken the -- up to now -- Chrome route and supported both.
The intent to do anything doesn't mean you will, so why not let google try. In the process they could create some useful change even if it is something like encouraging the removal of all royalties for h.264. Or who knows perhaps google will create the format needed for the digital blu-ray files needed to fulfill Apple etc intent to kill physical disks
As long as everyone else is free to choice what they want to use let Google have their go on this.
And please explain why royalties are such a bad thing? The members of the MPEG-LA group have put a cap on it ($6M)... and why shouldn't they as a group receive something for their Patents, efforts, scientific reasearch and engineers to continually improve it?
Why does everyone expect everything to be "free"? Why does any "open source advocate" think that Goggle gives a royal f*** about them? Goggle is more than happy to let you blindly contribute without adding you to their payrolls. Think about that.
I wish that all the players had taken the -- up to now -- Chrome route and supported both.
The issue for Apple and other manufacturers is that supporting h.264 is done in hardware making it possible to play high quality video on a device with an underpowered cpu. In the case of webM, the video would drain the battery, drop frames and disappoint users. If WebM were on a chip then the license holders will have justification of lost revenue due to patent infringement and the law suit would be filed
Ok bad example, but answer the main point I made please
Short answer: It's complicated.
Longer answer: These huge multinational companies are sneaky and it usually takes the US Feds or the EU to rein them in. That doesn't happen until a company's actions constitute hardship/harm to citizens or show improper leveraging of a monopoly, which I think would be the case with YouTube.
The issue for Apple and other manufacturers is that supporting h.264 is done in hardware making it possible to play high quality video on a device with an underpowered cpu. In the case of webM, the video would drain the battery, drop frames and disappoint users. If WebM were on a chip then the license holders will have justification of lost revenue due to patent infringement and the law suit would be filed
Yep, those are the issues. Which is why it's certainly premature to do WebM now. It seems like a better issue to wait for hardware and not push it exclusively. Hardware decoding is actually now coming onto the market, from AMD, NVidia, and ARM. Adoption of those designs will take years, though. WebM seems like an excellent long term investment in the web. I just don't like how it's all gone down. Denying choice seems like something repulsive to OSS advocates, and yet that's what they're doing here.
Like the standardization of rail gauges in the 19th century, maybe an adult (the government) needs to step in and impose order on the corporate children. A central authority has a role to play in helping to create order out of free market counterproductive chaos. Seems like we are reaching that point. It's like football without referees out there!
The issue for Apple and other manufacturers is that supporting h.264 is done in hardware making it possible to play high quality video on a device with an underpowered cpu. In the case of webM, the video would drain the battery, drop frames and disappoint users. If WebM were on a chip then the license holders will have justification of lost revenue due to patent infringement and the law suit would be filed
One other thing is that while battery life is an issue, I believe WebM has been proven to play back smoothly on mobiles just using software decoding. It's much less computationally complex than H.264.
Like I said, I think it's a wash at the moment. People are debating more on personal passion than facts, or twisting facts to support personal passions.
Comments
Assuming that YouTube remains compatible with h.264 nothing else matters. The only remaining issue is how much effort content publishers are willing to offer for reaching the widest possible audience. They will probably continue as they are now by offering various formats and Flash as a fall back.
They expire in 2027.
Video will be entirely holographic by that time.
If I stole diamonds and gave them away to someone who then gave me data from which I made money I'd still be earning from my theft! I'd still be a thief and subject to the law of the land.
Stealing diamonds is a criminal act, stealing code is a civil matter.
Android
Was only developed and released free to serve up mobile ads. (period). Even developers acknowledge this fact, considering that the Marketplace doesn't seem to be working well for developers that would like to be paid outright for their efforts.
Search, Books, Services, Maps, Gmail, etc... is ALL about ads, nothing to think that the WebM ploy is about anything else BUT ads.
WebM
When released and integrated with their own devices, without a doubt, will have a Java-based layer to overlay ads. And surely the proposed WebM Plugin will be the same as Flash, but just different enough to get out of a patent dispute with Adobe.
You think for a moment that Google embraced Adobe and Flash, integrated it into Chrome and Android, without "looking under the hood"(?), or getting something other than a "selling point"?
WebM Plugin
This is seriously sinister, since it would allow Google to even serve ads overlayed on content that they are not serving on their own servers/services, since the layer code is built into the plugin.
Think: Vimeo, Facebook, or your own website's videos being overlayed with ads because the WebM plug-in is needed/installed. This without needing the consent of the owner of the video or the server publishing it, since Google received the consent to do so, by the end-user accepting the EULA when they installed the WebM plugin. Not to forget, but Google Analytics will also be built into the plugin, naturally, for it to be able to work properly.
At the moment, I doubt Google would try this trickery with H264, and besides they don't need to, because Adobe's Flash takes care of that for them with their wrapper.
NOTE: fact is that Google and many others are working on a way to overlay HTML5-H264 videos with ads anyway. One way or another, HTML5 video will have ads, and there's nothing anyone can do about that.
There is no such thing as "free". There are and always will be strings attached. And no, I'm not wearing a tin-hat or thinking conspiracy. Actually, you have to see this move by Google as doing good business and keeping focused: sell and deliver more ads!
At the moment, I doubt Google would try this trickery with H264, and besides they don't need to, because Adobe's Flash takes care of that for them with their wrapper.
The irony...Adobe Flash will become the new savior for Mac users.
This is about two things. First, they are propping up Flash because they believe the demise of Flash gives others a competitive advantage over them. Second, they want to control video on the Web and don't really care how wide a swath they lay waste to in achieving that goal. Their plugin strategy is a giant step backward and a giant step away from an open Web, free of proprietary plugins.
The whole open source thing is just a ruse, a diversion, and the open source community consists of a large number of vocal people who are easily manipulated by the symbols of open source.
Here's some food for thought. H.264 is an open standard. WebM isn't an open standard at all, it's completely controlled by Google. Now, which of these is really more open? WebM is essentially a proprietary technology.
As long as everyone else is free to choice what they want to use let Google have their go on this.
But on the positive side, what that does mean is that these aren't really 'plugins' as far as the web page knows. As far as the HTML5 capabilities of the browser to do all the neat stuff we've been seeing, WebM would be just as native as H.264 (minus platform hardware acceleration)
Now, Firefox, which does have more market share than Chrome and Safari combined, can *only* play WebM/Theora natively. It (like Chrome and Opera) does NOT take advantage of the codecs already licensed by Apple and Microsoft and cannot play back H.264. Ever. On any platform. What Microsoft has released actually IS a plugin, basically bypassing HTML 5 and replacing it with an instance of Windows MediaPlayer, just as much an island on the page as Flash is.
I can see the point of both sides, but the problem is that both sides ignore the *good* points that the other side makes. So many words have been spilled out of this, it's a real shame for me, a web developer dealing in video, that they have been spilled with so little objectivity. Both codecs are good for different reasons. I wish that all the players had taken the -- up to now -- Chrome route and supported both.
Stealing diamonds is a criminal act, stealing code is a civil matter.
Ok bad example, but answer the main point I made please
It costs too much to sue Google. It's much easier to sue their associates.
OK but if anyone did there is a lot of money at the end of the trail ...
The intent to do anything doesn't mean you will, so why not let google try. In the process they could create some useful change even if it is something like encouraging the removal of all royalties for h.264. Or who knows perhaps google will create the format needed for the digital blu-ray files needed to fulfill Apple etc intent to kill physical disks
As long as everyone else is free to choice what they want to use let Google have their go on this.
And please explain why royalties are such a bad thing? The members of the MPEG-LA group have put a cap on it ($6M)... and why shouldn't they as a group receive something for their Patents, efforts, scientific reasearch and engineers to continually improve it?
Why does everyone expect everything to be "free"? Why does any "open source advocate" think that Goggle gives a royal f*** about them? Goggle is more than happy to let you blindly contribute without adding you to their payrolls. Think about that.
I wish that all the players had taken the -- up to now -- Chrome route and supported both.
The issue for Apple and other manufacturers is that supporting h.264 is done in hardware making it possible to play high quality video on a device with an underpowered cpu. In the case of webM, the video would drain the battery, drop frames and disappoint users. If WebM were on a chip then the license holders will have justification of lost revenue due to patent infringement and the law suit would be filed
Ok bad example, but answer the main point I made please
Short answer: It's complicated.
Longer answer: These huge multinational companies are sneaky and it usually takes the US Feds or the EU to rein them in. That doesn't happen until a company's actions constitute hardship/harm to citizens or show improper leveraging of a monopoly, which I think would be the case with YouTube.
The issue for Apple and other manufacturers is that supporting h.264 is done in hardware making it possible to play high quality video on a device with an underpowered cpu. In the case of webM, the video would drain the battery, drop frames and disappoint users. If WebM were on a chip then the license holders will have justification of lost revenue due to patent infringement and the law suit would be filed
Yep, those are the issues. Which is why it's certainly premature to do WebM now. It seems like a better issue to wait for hardware and not push it exclusively. Hardware decoding is actually now coming onto the market, from AMD, NVidia, and ARM. Adoption of those designs will take years, though. WebM seems like an excellent long term investment in the web. I just don't like how it's all gone down. Denying choice seems like something repulsive to OSS advocates, and yet that's what they're doing here.
The issue for Apple and other manufacturers is that supporting h.264 is done in hardware making it possible to play high quality video on a device with an underpowered cpu. In the case of webM, the video would drain the battery, drop frames and disappoint users. If WebM were on a chip then the license holders will have justification of lost revenue due to patent infringement and the law suit would be filed
One other thing is that while battery life is an issue, I believe WebM has been proven to play back smoothly on mobiles just using software decoding. It's much less computationally complex than H.264.
Like I said, I think it's a wash at the moment. People are debating more on personal passion than facts, or twisting facts to support personal passions.