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

1235725

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 481
    If Google were all about open and free standards, they'd drop support for Flash as well in Chrome. Now they're ensuring Flash gets an advantage over HTML5.
  • Reply 82 of 481
    macrulezmacrulez Posts: 2,455member
    deleted
  • Reply 83 of 481
    macrulezmacrulez Posts: 2,455member
    deleted
  • Reply 84 of 481
    macrulezmacrulez Posts: 2,455member
    deleted
  • Reply 85 of 481
    macrulezmacrulez Posts: 2,455member
    deleted
  • Reply 86 of 481
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by kepardue View Post


    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.



    Pure speculation unless you have a citation. You need to compare them fairly. How big is the battery and how many cores is the cpu? How many pixels is the display? How much is the video compression. The laws of physics are much harder to circumvent than patent law.
  • Reply 87 of 481
    If everyone is going to support different standards, the user is the loser in the end. HTML5 H.264 seemed to be good why Google doesn't want to pay with all their money. So now a WebM plugin as well. Hopefully these 2 play nice together.
  • Reply 88 of 481
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by satcomer View Post


    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?



    Apple can't do that.

    WebKit comes from KTHML, which is licensed under LGPL. So, everyone can use it and even fork it (WebKit itself is a fork), but the code must always be released publicly under LGPL.



    By the way, WebKit does already "include HTML5". It's probably the engine that supports it better, at the moment...
  • Reply 89 of 481
    newbeenewbee Posts: 2,055member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by StephenHoward View Post


    ..... Each time open source advocates have taken the long view and the internet is free today because of those decisions.



    I'm not sure how "free" the internet is when I not only have to pay my cable provider for bandwidth use and on top of this I have to put up with ads all over the place ....... not complaining ... just saying ..... if I have to pay, why shouldn't Google .... who stands to make a ton of money off of it?
  • Reply 90 of 481
    sheffsheff Posts: 1,407member
    Back when webm was announced and implemented into Crome I did a little test. I watched webm and flash versions of the same YouTube video on my MacBook. I looked at CPU usage and can speeds. The difference was negligible. Then I watched h.264 in safari - 2400 rpm and 60 instead of 100 CPU usage.



    I don't know if webm improved over that time, but I have left the html5 besta and switched back to flash on chrome and ff because webm and flash had equally horrendous performance, but at least all videos were in flash.



    Edit: I meant to type in 4200, not 2400 sorry. But the difference between 4200 and 6400 is barely hearing the fan in a room to it being pretty loud.
  • Reply 91 of 481
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by newbee View Post


    I'm not sure how "free" the internet is when I not only have to pay my cable provider for bandwidth use and on top of this I have to put up with ads all over the place ....... not complaining ... just saying ..... if I have to pay, why shouldn't Google .... who stands to make a ton of money off of it?



    You know what's ironic??? Seems like Google actually does NOT pay for bandwidth http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/...ube-bandwidth/
  • Reply 92 of 481
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sheff View Post


    Back when webm was announced and implemented into Crome I did a little test. I watched webm and flash versions of the same YouTube video on my MacBook. I looked at CPU usage and can speeds. The difference was negligible. Then I watched h.264 in safari - 2400 rpm and 60 instead of 100 CPU usage.



    I don't know if webm improved over that time, but I have left the html5 besta and switched back to flash on chrome and ff because webm and flash had equally horrendous performance, but at least all videos were in flash.



    This is exactly because of hardware acceleration.

    H264 is hardware-decoded, at least on modern macbooks.



    In my 2010 MacBook Pro, the Intel HD integrated video card can decode YouTube's video by itself (even 720p), without having to activate the NVidia discrete card!

    Miracles of hardware acceleration
  • Reply 93 of 481
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by StephenHoward View Post


    How pathetic, you're happy to create a commercial monopolist because it makes life easier for you today, don't worry about tomorrow.



    I am happy to use what works well and is built into much of the video on the web and elsewhere.
  • Reply 94 of 481
    newbeenewbee Posts: 2,055member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by EgoAleSum View Post


    Agree.



    By the way, monopolies are not *necessarily* wrong. I'm having my Microeconomics exam next week! So I think I know what I'm saying



    That depends on whether you pass or not! .....
  • Reply 95 of 481
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dagamer34 View Post


    They expire in 2027.



    Doing some quick searches, patents after 1995 last 20 years.



    Mpeg- la infers that the clock started ticking for patents ~2001. But they are not clear on if that applies to all patents



    http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/FAQ.aspx



    The problem with this whole issue is multiple definitions for terms like standard, specifications and open.



    IMO, and I'm no expert so forgive the ignorance, if something is to be a specification standard it should be open source and free. Just agreeing on what works(h.264), well that may be a 'standard' agreement to do something, but that is not a specification standard. In otherwords, both sides are correct IMO. Solution... If mlegla wants this to be industry specification standard, they should make it free. Else it's just a general agreement that may be open to monopoly review(ala Microsoft)
  • Reply 96 of 481
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by newbee View Post


    That depends on whether you pass or not! .....



    I'm knocking on wood You're trying to bring bad luck???
  • Reply 97 of 481
    pokepoke Posts: 506member
    I think there's a lot of confusion on this matter. Google simply doesn't have the power to force people to adopt WebM. Dropping H.264 in Chrome is, to my mind, an entirely cynical move aimed at propping up Flash with the intention of damaging Apple. Consider the following:



    1. Google has said they will remove H.264 support in HTML5 from the Chrome browser. It has also said it will supply WebM plugins for other browsers.



    2. Google's Chrome browser will still ship with Flash which supports H.264 so Chrome will still support H.264 video.



    3. Google has not said it will remove H.264 from Android. Since Android phones have hardware support for H.264 this is unlikely.



    4. Even if Google removed H.264 support from Android the handset manufacturers could just add it back themselves. This is a likely scenario since they all support H.264 in hardware and are all H.264 licensees regardless. Most of the Android handset manufacturers support other platforms, like Windows Phone 7, that support H.264 and will never have support for WebM. They have nothing to gain from dropping H.264 support. Google has no means of forcing the handset manufacturers to drop H.264 or use WebM. The best they could do would be to provide incentives. Also note that many carriers have video services that supply video in H.264 format. H.264 support could easily be continued simply by branching that module from the existing Android codebase and continuing development outside Google.



    5. Google has not said it will stop encoding videos in H.264 on YouTube. To do so would require WebM support in other browsers. This won't be possible until Google has a WebM plugin available for Internet Explorer and Safari or Flash supports WebM. Android would also need to support WebM. Google does not have the ability to update the vast majority of existing Android phones without the approval of the handset manufacturers and carriers. If you've seen how fragmented Android is on different phones then you know that dropping support for H.264 on YouTube would mean dropping support for the huge number of existing Android phones that run older versions of the software and do not receive updates. Obviously it would also mean no longer supporting iOS devices and Windows Phone 7 devices. This would be far more damaging to Google than to anyone else. If anything Google's "monopoly" on web video makes it more difficult for them to take a stance on web video standards; if they start excluding existing devices they will quickly lose users. Google makes its money from advertising. If you were a company advertising on YouTube and Google started systematically excluding people from viewing video there in an attempt to make a point about open standards, you would not continue to advertise with Google. People talk as if Google answers to no one; in fact, they answer to the companies that advertise with them. Those are their customers, not you and not the open source community. They have to be always expanding their audience, not contracting it to make minor points in an ideological battle their customers do not understand or care about.



    6. Internet Explorer still has the most market share and Microsoft has pledged support for H.264 and not WebM. They have also supplied a H.264 plugin for Firefox. It's likely that we'll see an H.264 plugin for Chrome. Apple could easily supply an H.264 plugin for Firefox and Chrome on the Mac. The result will be that almost any browser running on these two platforms (Windows and OS X) will support H.264. If such plugins become ubiquitous then Flash won't be necessary to watch video anywhere and nobody will need to re-encode their video in WebM.



    7. A large and significant number of web users are running old versions of browsers and out of date Flash plugins. The only way to serve video content to them is via Flash. When choosing which format to encode video in it only makes sense to use H.264 since it can be served directly or in a Flash wrapper. Nobody is going to take the time to encode in WebM as well when they can reach everyone through H.264 either directly using the <video> tag (native support or a plugin) or via Flash.



    8. It's worth noting that any browser could easily support H.264 without paying royalties by simply using the native support in modern operating systems to render video just like apps in the App Store can play H.264 video without having to implement their own decoder or pay royalties.



    In short, Google just doesn't have the power to change video on the web.
  • Reply 98 of 481
    newbeenewbee Posts: 2,055member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by EgoAleSum View Post


    I'm knocking on wood You're trying to bring bad luck???



    You'll pass, with flying colors (whatever the hell that means) .... I have great faith in you. Best wishes!
  • Reply 99 of 481
    Uh.... I'm not going to just switch because it saves Google money. H.264 is fast, instant and looks great.
  • Reply 100 of 481
    alfiejralfiejr Posts: 1,524member
    MPEGLA needs to sue the first major OEM to install Chrome with WebM, to send a very clear message.



    and Apple needs to just buy Adobe and put Flash (and Acrobat) out of its misery.
Sign In or Register to comment.