Are you suggesting that the <video> tag should work only for Mac OS X or Windows 7 users?
I mentioned those two because you mentioned them. Linux of course has libavcodec. The way it gets around the royalties is that you have to compile it yourself.
If Google did the right thing and relinquished control of the WebM to a standards body I would be supportive but they haven't because they want to control WebM just like with Android.
Google likes to use the term 'open' because it appeals to people with a particular wordview. If you look at another way, Google is simply exploiting the open source community, getting them to work for free, and adding to Google controlled and exploited products like Android/WebM.
"Do no Evil', really??
Shouldn't it be more like: " Externalise costs and risks to third parties to protect advertising monopoly cash-cow".
well you can't blame them for wanting to make money...
some people are stupid enough to buy their crappy android phones though
Are you suggesting that the <video> tag should work only for Mac OS X or Windows 7 users?
I'll just put up a mozilla plug in button to encourage those who don't have h.264 to download the plug in for FF and chrome. I'm not putting crappy flash on my site.
Wrong. Firefox, Chrome and Opera will have almost 50% of the market supporting WebM in the <video> tag. Internet Explorer 8 still doesn't support H.264 in the <video> tag, and this will happen only in IE9, to be released only in 2012.
This means that Safari with its 5% of share will be alone supporting H.264 in the <video> tag, until IE9 arrives. By then, more than 50% of the web browsers will have native WebM and Ogg Theora support in the <video> tag. Then <video> on the web will be the Apple-Microsoft alliance against everybody else.
FF has 22% and chrome has 12% of the browser market. Let's get our facts straight. That's no where near 50%.
It is not ubiquitous on the web. That is why the majority of videos are still served using Flash. The <video> tag is not so widespread and Mozilla, Opera and, now, Google, want to avoid a non-free codec to become the standard for the <video> tag.
The whole point of supporting WebM or any other royalty-free codec is to avoid a proprietary codec to become ubiquitous on the web.
It makes no sense to me to see anti-Flash proponents to bash WebM or any other royalty-free codecs, because supporting them is avoiding the creation of a new situation like Flash: an ubiquitous proprietary technology that will become harder and harder to avoid.
The problem is we don't know if WebM is royalty free. That hasn't been litigated yet. Google isn't offering up protection to those using this codec. More to the point the codec is inferior to h.264 in quality and hardware support.
Do you know if Quicktime supports non-Apple variations of WebKit?
I wouldn't be surprised if a small group of coders make one specifically for Chrome.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tawilson
I'd imagine nothing has happened yet because there is no money to be made from said litigation.
It would be easier if Google directly made money from it, but I don't think the lack of a direct sale removes them from the prospect of damages. I would think that if MPEG-LA wanted to avoid risking losing control of the situation, filing a suit directly against Google would slow adoption by the hardware companies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tawilson
There are no known patent violations in VP8 because we haven't looked to know.
No one has brought forth any patent claims either...yet!
I think there are two sides to this, has the MPEG-LA made any specific claims, such as what part of the codec violates a specific patent?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Not at all. Did you miss all the people (including Google) complaining that Apple had a monopoly - when the iPhone was only about 15% of smartphones and 2% of cell phones?
Sorry, I've missed that if Google really did say that. Do you recall when and the circumstances?
Well, HTML5 didn't define a standard codec for videos because they couldn't choose a proprietary one. This brings us back to the discussion: isn't it easier to just stick with a royalty-free fallback that everybody can implement and ship?
Nobody is asking Apple and Microsoft to not support H.264 in their browsers or operating systems. They can, as long as they also support a standard codec for videos that will be also available in other browsers and platforms independently of the company being able to afford the current and specially the future royalty fees.
Who can afford the cost of hosting two or three large files for every video on a site? If it were superior to the h.264 then it would make sense. Right now it doesn't even make sense. Get something free that's not as good. Eeek! I'm sorry but we should be using the best video quality with the smallest size on the web. I guess I'm just not a purist if it means taking a step backwards technologically.
Yes it does because the subject of this whole discussion is the <video> tag defined by open web standards, and these standards are defined by the W3C. H.264 can't be an open web standard because it is not royalty-free. Firefox, Opera and Chrome are just leading the path for an open web.
The W3C hasn't specified any codec standards, nor are they likely to, so your entire argument on that basis is moot. H.264 is an open standard. WebM isn't any kind of standard, and it's particularly not an open standard. WebM is controlled by a single company, Google, and it is faux open source in the same way Android is faux open source. Both will remain completely controlled by Google and contributions from "the community" will not, in any significant way, end up in either. Basically, what both are is not open source but simply free (as in beer) source code.
The bottom line is that Google loses the whole argument about open standards because WebM isn't any kind of standard (nor will it ever be), and, in the short term at least, this serves the purpose of propping up Flash, which isn't any kind of standard either.
The thing I'm finding the most disturbing about this entire scenario is discovering just how completely uncritical the thought of so many open source advocates. That they just accept without question and at face value, with apparently no real understanding, whatever Google says, as long as they couch it in terms of open this and open that.
It is not ubiquitous on the web. That is why the majority of videos are still served using Flash.
H.264 served using HTML5 is not ubiquitous on the desktop web but the vast majority of video served on the web is encoded in H.264, served via Flash on the desktop and via HTML5 (or via apps like the iOS Youtube app) on the 'mobile' web.
Switching to WebM thus means re-encoding a whole of lot of video and since hardware decoders in mobile device for WebM will appear overnight, means having to serve your video in two formats, ie, doubling your storage needs.
Ohhhh boy I bet you MPEG LA is waiting patiently for Google to roll out WebM for a year or so, make some nice patent-infringing improvements to it... Then BAM! Crush WebM with litigation. Just you see...
Why not crush them now? I think it makes sense to crush them now.
This is not a good idea, in my opinion. Research costs, and no one will ever invest millions of dollars in something that may then be used freely by competitors.
Imagine you were a pharmaceutic industry, and you just developed a new medicine. You had to spend millions in research (instruments, wages, etc etc). If you don't patent your molecule, someone else is able to use it, without any investment in research, and you loose a lot of money.
No, this is called a joint venture and it is exactly what the MPEG LA currently does successfully.
Give Firefox feedback! http://input.mozilla.com/en-US/sad (they force you to download Firefox 4 Beta though... which is not bad, actually)
Your post brings up a thought.
What is to prevent Apple from building a free plugin for every browser on every OS, as a fallback to the <video> tag ala Flash, that supports h.264 using QuickTime and/or codecs already in the OS when available. MS could do the same with their technology.
Certainly, the "open" browsers would have to give the same level of support to these plugins to use h.264 (and hardware acceleration, when available) as they do the Flash plugin.
Since the royalties are being paid, the end user gets a superior result (codec) -- who could complain?
What is to prevent Apple from building a free plugin for every browser on every OS, as a fallback to the <video> tag ala Flash, that supports h.264 using QuickTime and/or codecs already in the OS when available. MS could do the same.
Certainly, the "open" browsers would have to give the same level of support to these plugins to use h.264 (and hardware acceleration, when available) as they do the Flash plugin.
Since the royalties are being paid, the end user gets a superior result (codec) -- who could complain?
Good :: Goose == Good :: Gander!
Ya actually I thought of that briefly. Let Apple build the H.264 plugins and give it away free, this would really flip off Google and Adobe.
Just imagine all the OH NOES APPLE IS DESTROYIN DA FREE AND OPENZ WEBS!
... What is to prevent Apple from building a free plugin for every browser on every OS, as a fallback to the <video> tag ala Flash, that supports h.264...
Nothing prevents them from doing this, but the whole point of having video directly supported in HTML was so browsers were not dependent on plugins. The only open standard that is viable for that, however, is H.264. WebM isn't open and it isn't a standard.
Google says there are "no know patent violations in VP8" because nobody there has looked.
Nonsense. Of course they have analyzed it. In fact, On2 did too, because their business was based on making video codecs that did not infringe on patents.
Quote:
The fact they aren't prepared to offer any protection to companies who use WebM, just goes to show how sure of themselves they are (i.e. not in the slightest).
The fact that they are actively using it themselves just goes to show how sure they are that there are no patent violations.
Quote:
All Google has done is stated facts. But reading between the lines, what they are saying is:
There are no known patent violations in VP8 because we haven't looked to know.
No one has brought forth any patent claims either...yet!
You are just spreading FUD.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tawilson
Still doesn't change the fact the H.264 IS an open standard now does it?
Yes it does. Because it is not open.
Quote:
Both Goole and WebM's proponents like to twist the meanings so that this fact is lost.
No, it is you who are twisting the meaning. Even Microsoft agress that "open" means royalty-free. Also, this is the web, so the W3C decides.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tawilson
Exactly. Mozilla's stance is a little crazy in this respect.
No, Mozilla's stance is perfectly reasonable since they want an open web.
Comments
Are you suggesting that the <video> tag should work only for Mac OS X or Windows 7 users?
I mentioned those two because you mentioned them. Linux of course has libavcodec. The way it gets around the royalties is that you have to compile it yourself.
DED is an amazing writer.
Did you NOT see all the spelling mistakes?
Are we moving so fast that an 'amazing writer' can make so many writing mistakes that they are a great writer?
Sad to see us slowly drift into stupidity.
If Google did the right thing and relinquished control of the WebM to a standards body I would be supportive but they haven't because they want to control WebM just like with Android.
Google likes to use the term 'open' because it appeals to people with a particular wordview. If you look at another way, Google is simply exploiting the open source community, getting them to work for free, and adding to Google controlled and exploited products like Android/WebM.
"Do no Evil', really??
Shouldn't it be more like: " Externalise costs and risks to third parties to protect advertising monopoly cash-cow".
well you can't blame them for wanting to make money...
some people are stupid enough to buy their crappy android phones though
Are you suggesting that the <video> tag should work only for Mac OS X or Windows 7 users?
I'll just put up a mozilla plug in button to encourage those who don't have h.264 to download the plug in for FF and chrome.
Wrong. Firefox, Chrome and Opera will have almost 50% of the market supporting WebM in the <video> tag. Internet Explorer 8 still doesn't support H.264 in the <video> tag, and this will happen only in IE9, to be released only in 2012.
This means that Safari with its 5% of share will be alone supporting H.264 in the <video> tag, until IE9 arrives. By then, more than 50% of the web browsers will have native WebM and Ogg Theora support in the <video> tag. Then <video> on the web will be the Apple-Microsoft alliance against everybody else.
FF has 22% and chrome has 12% of the browser market. Let's get our facts straight. That's no where near 50%.
It is not ubiquitous on the web. That is why the majority of videos are still served using Flash. The <video> tag is not so widespread and Mozilla, Opera and, now, Google, want to avoid a non-free codec to become the standard for the <video> tag.
The whole point of supporting WebM or any other royalty-free codec is to avoid a proprietary codec to become ubiquitous on the web.
It makes no sense to me to see anti-Flash proponents to bash WebM or any other royalty-free codecs, because supporting them is avoiding the creation of a new situation like Flash: an ubiquitous proprietary technology that will become harder and harder to avoid.
The problem is we don't know if WebM is royalty free. That hasn't been litigated yet. Google isn't offering up protection to those using this codec. More to the point the codec is inferior to h.264 in quality and hardware support.
And provided by who exactly?
Do you know if Quicktime supports non-Apple variations of WebKit?
I wouldn't be surprised if a small group of coders make one specifically for Chrome.
I'd imagine nothing has happened yet because there is no money to be made from said litigation.
It would be easier if Google directly made money from it, but I don't think the lack of a direct sale removes them from the prospect of damages. I would think that if MPEG-LA wanted to avoid risking losing control of the situation, filing a suit directly against Google would slow adoption by the hardware companies.
I think there are two sides to this, has the MPEG-LA made any specific claims, such as what part of the codec violates a specific patent?
Not at all. Did you miss all the people (including Google) complaining that Apple had a monopoly - when the iPhone was only about 15% of smartphones and 2% of cell phones?
Sorry, I've missed that if Google really did say that. Do you recall when and the circumstances?
Well, HTML5 didn't define a standard codec for videos because they couldn't choose a proprietary one. This brings us back to the discussion: isn't it easier to just stick with a royalty-free fallback that everybody can implement and ship?
Nobody is asking Apple and Microsoft to not support H.264 in their browsers or operating systems. They can, as long as they also support a standard codec for videos that will be also available in other browsers and platforms independently of the company being able to afford the current and specially the future royalty fees.
Who can afford the cost of hosting two or three large files for every video on a site? If it were superior to the h.264 then it would make sense. Right now it doesn't even make sense. Get something free that's not as good. Eeek! I'm sorry but we should be using the best video quality with the smallest size on the web. I guess I'm just not a purist if it means taking a step backwards technologically.
Yes it does because the subject of this whole discussion is the <video> tag defined by open web standards, and these standards are defined by the W3C. H.264 can't be an open web standard because it is not royalty-free. Firefox, Opera and Chrome are just leading the path for an open web.
The W3C hasn't specified any codec standards, nor are they likely to, so your entire argument on that basis is moot. H.264 is an open standard. WebM isn't any kind of standard, and it's particularly not an open standard. WebM is controlled by a single company, Google, and it is faux open source in the same way Android is faux open source. Both will remain completely controlled by Google and contributions from "the community" will not, in any significant way, end up in either. Basically, what both are is not open source but simply free (as in beer) source code.
The bottom line is that Google loses the whole argument about open standards because WebM isn't any kind of standard (nor will it ever be), and, in the short term at least, this serves the purpose of propping up Flash, which isn't any kind of standard either.
The thing I'm finding the most disturbing about this entire scenario is discovering just how completely uncritical the thought of so many open source advocates. That they just accept without question and at face value, with apparently no real understanding, whatever Google says, as long as they couch it in terms of open this and open that.
It is not ubiquitous on the web. That is why the majority of videos are still served using Flash.
H.264 served using HTML5 is not ubiquitous on the desktop web but the vast majority of video served on the web is encoded in H.264, served via Flash on the desktop and via HTML5 (or via apps like the iOS Youtube app) on the 'mobile' web.
Switching to WebM thus means re-encoding a whole of lot of video and since hardware decoders in mobile device for WebM will appear overnight, means having to serve your video in two formats, ie, doubling your storage needs.
Ohhhh boy I bet you MPEG LA is waiting patiently for Google to roll out WebM for a year or so, make some nice patent-infringing improvements to it... Then BAM! Crush WebM with litigation. Just you see...
Why not crush them now? I think it makes sense to crush them now.
This is not a good idea, in my opinion. Research costs, and no one will ever invest millions of dollars in something that may then be used freely by competitors.
Imagine you were a pharmaceutic industry, and you just developed a new medicine. You had to spend millions in research (instruments, wages, etc etc). If you don't patent your molecule, someone else is able to use it, without any investment in research, and you loose a lot of money.
No, this is called a joint venture and it is exactly what the MPEG LA currently does successfully.
Give Firefox feedback! http://input.mozilla.com/en-US/sad (they force you to download Firefox 4 Beta though... which is not bad, actually)
Your post brings up a thought.
What is to prevent Apple from building a free plugin for every browser on every OS, as a fallback to the <video> tag ala Flash, that supports h.264 using QuickTime and/or codecs already in the OS when available. MS could do the same with their technology.
Certainly, the "open" browsers would have to give the same level of support to these plugins to use h.264 (and hardware acceleration, when available) as they do the Flash plugin.
Since the royalties are being paid, the end user gets a superior result (codec) -- who could complain?
Good :: Goose == Good :: Gander!
Your post brings up a thought.
What is to prevent Apple from building a free plugin for every browser on every OS, as a fallback to the <video> tag ala Flash, that supports h.264 using QuickTime and/or codecs already in the OS when available. MS could do the same.
Certainly, the "open" browsers would have to give the same level of support to these plugins to use h.264 (and hardware acceleration, when available) as they do the Flash plugin.
Since the royalties are being paid, the end user gets a superior result (codec) -- who could complain?
Good :: Goose == Good :: Gander!
Ya actually I thought of that briefly. Let Apple build the H.264 plugins and give it away free, this would really flip off Google and Adobe.
Just imagine all the OH NOES APPLE IS DESTROYIN DA FREE AND OPENZ WEBS!
No, this is called a joint venture and it is exactly what the MPEG LA currently does successfully.
I know what a joint venture is... But I don't understand what this has to do with my post...
I was telling an user that I don't think a 100% free and open video format may ever be a good solution!
... What is to prevent Apple from building a free plugin for every browser on every OS, as a fallback to the <video> tag ala Flash, that supports h.264...
Nothing prevents them from doing this, but the whole point of having video directly supported in HTML was so browsers were not dependent on plugins. The only open standard that is viable for that, however, is H.264. WebM isn't open and it isn't a standard.
If that were truly the case then they would be supporting H.264 which is an OPEN STANDARD from ISO?!?
H264 is not an open standard. Read the W3C Patent Policy. Open standards are required to be royalty-free. Even Microsoft agrees with this definition.
And even if you disagree, it still violates the W3C Patent Policy whether you call it "open" or not. So it's not compatible with an open web.
Google says there are "no know patent violations in VP8" because nobody there has looked.
Nonsense. Of course they have analyzed it. In fact, On2 did too, because their business was based on making video codecs that did not infringe on patents.
The fact they aren't prepared to offer any protection to companies who use WebM, just goes to show how sure of themselves they are (i.e. not in the slightest).
The fact that they are actively using it themselves just goes to show how sure they are that there are no patent violations.
All Google has done is stated facts. But reading between the lines, what they are saying is:
You are just spreading FUD.
Still doesn't change the fact the H.264 IS an open standard now does it?
Yes it does. Because it is not open.
Both Goole and WebM's proponents like to twist the meanings so that this fact is lost.
No, it is you who are twisting the meaning. Even Microsoft agress that "open" means royalty-free. Also, this is the web, so the W3C decides.
Exactly. Mozilla's stance is a little crazy in this respect.
No, Mozilla's stance is perfectly reasonable since they want an open web.