There's every reason to believe that the easiest path for video encoders is to simply serve their H.264 content in a Flash wrapper to clients that don't have H.264 straight up.
Video sites are already re-encoding videos into multiple formats.
Quote:
Why would they go through the trouble of re-encoding huge libraries when Google's patently self serving embrace of "open standards" allows them to continue to use Flash?
They can keep using Flash while the transition to WebM is still going on. But it will be in their interest to support native video in browsers. And they can just re-encode to WebM instead of h264.
Quote:
If Google had announced they were dropping support of Flash in the interest of openness I would be extremely impressed.
That would be quite silly. Video on the web today is basically Flash. If you don't support Flash, you are not going to keep your users.
Quote:
As it is-- dropping the ubiquitous, well performing and ratified standard but keeping the ubiquitous, poorly performing and proprietary format, claiming that ubiquity on the one hand requires support but that on the other does not-- I call bullshit.
No, the bullshit here is entirely yours. H264 is incompatible with the open web, and WebM is not proprietary. I know you hate Google and desperately want to defend Apple, but stop the lies now, please.
Google states "If there are significant improvements to warrant a new revision we might adopt them, but only after careful consideration and after discussing suggested changes with the WebM community". What does it means here "after discussing"? Anything different from "everyone speaks, google decides"? Who has decisional rights in WebM "community" (not "project")? Who will vote?
Have you some more doubts about openness? Read the License agreement for Contributors to WebM project:
"You [contributors] hereby grant to Google and to recipients of software distributed by Google a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute Your Contributions and such derivative works."
If i don't make mistakes, this means that contributors confer their IP to Google (not to "WebM project") and implicitly give faculty of distribution to Google (not to "WebM project").
"WebM project" seems not an independent board like ISO, but a project firmly owned by Google.
Google does his own interest, as Apple does, and now advantages Adobe Flash.
Nor Google is good, nor Apple is evil. But Google makes his money mostly from advertisers; Microsoft from OEMs; Apple from users.
An open standard is a standard that is publicly available and has various rights to use associated with it, and may also have various properties of how it was designed (e.g. open process). There is no single definition and interpretations do vary with usage.
The terms "open" and "standard" have a wide range of meanings associated with their usage. There are number of definitions of open standards which emphasize different aspects of openness, including of the resulting specification, the openness of the drafting process, and the ownership of rights in the standard. The term "standard" is sometimes restricted to technologies approved by formalized committees that are open to participation by all interested parties and operate on a consensus basis.
The definitions of the term "open standard" used by academics, the European Union and some of its member governments or parliaments such as Denmark, France, and Spain preclude open standards requiring fees for use, as do the New Zealand, South African and the Venezuelan governments. On the standard organisation side, the W3C ensures that its specifications can be implemented on a Royalty-Free (RF) basis.
Many definitions of the term "standard" permit patent holders to impose "reasonable and non-discriminatory" royalty fees and other licensing terms on implementers and/or users of the standard. For example, the rules for standards published by the major internationally recognized standards bodies such as the IETF, ISO, IEC, and ITU-T permittheir standards to contain specifications whose implementation will require payment of patent licensing fees. Among these organizations, only the IETF and ITU-T explicitly refer to their standards as "open standards", while the others refer only to producing "standards". The IETF and ITU-T use definitions of "open standard" that allow "reasonable and non-discriminatory" patent licensing fee requirements.
Will Chrome continue supporting the GIF/Jpeg image formats? Did they work out a deal with Unisys/Compuserve or whoever owns them?
Excellent point. The gif patents have expired now, but this shows that it was a huge mistake to not require a baseline codec for html5 video. There should be a baseline format which is open and free, to avoid proprietary technologies from taking over. Like h264 was threatening to take over, and close video on the web.
Ya' know... I've read your last 30, or so, posts -- and you just keep repeating the same arbitrary, unsupported statements.
On the contrary, I have consistently pointed to well known definitions and exposed the amazing hypocrisy of the Apple fanboy brigade.
Quote:
You never address the challenges to your assertions. Many of these challenges are made by members who have reputations for fairness, sound reasoning and willingness to evaluate all points presented.
Nonsense. I have addressed every single issue I have come across.
Quote:
You are not contributing to the discussion.
On the contrary, I am correcting blatant lies, such as WebM being proprietary and h264 being an open standard.
Quote:
If you can prove that h.264 is not a de facto standard -- let's see/hear it.
I never said h264 isn't a standard. It's a standard alright. I'm pointing out that it is not an open standard. The W3C requires open web standards to be royalty-free. In fact, even Microsoft of all companies agrees that open standards are royalty-free.
MPEG LA is already saying they believe that WebM already violates some MPEG LA patents. If WebM gets any of the major improvements it needs would also mean more patent violations = LAWSUIT(s).
Google making WebM available free, WITHOUT PATENT INDEMNIFICATION, should tell everyone all they need to know about WebM.
Logically, why does this matter? Apple already pays the license fee for h.264. Why would they be hit by a law suit related to h.264?
Whenever a discussion on AI involves Apple and Google on different sides of an issue -- the forum seems to be monopolized by a tag team of anti-Apple posters, who seem to play off each other's posts.
Now you are just getting pathetic. I haven't been anti-Apple at all. Just because I point out your blatant fanboyism and hypocrisy doesn't mean I'm anti-Apple. Do you represent Apple?
Quote:
This happens so predictably that it is hard to believe that it is not orchastrated.
Oh no! Two people disagree with you, therefore they are organized!
Quote:
What I don't understand is what the Apple haters hope to accomplish -- at best they make AI a more popular site, at worst they look pretty stupid vis a vis a reasonable discussion, while doing nothing to advance their agenda.
So what you are saying is that users of Apple products cannot possibly argue in favor of an open web? Amazing.
"You [contributors] hereby grant to Google and to recipients of software distributed by Google a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute Your Contributions and such derivative works."
If i don't make mistakes, this means that contributors confer their IP to Google (not to "WebM project") and implicitly give faculty of distribution to Google (not to "WebM project").
"WebM project" seems not an independent board like ISO, but a project firmly owned by Google.
Nope. WebM is an open-source project sponsored by Google and others. Google gave out an irrevocable unlimited license for WebM. They have made sure they can never make any sorts of claims about patents or anything like that against WebM. They can never take ownership again.
Yes, I do. We are talking about open web. H.264 can't be considered open in the context of open web because it is patent-encumbered.
This was said already, and this is why Firefox and others can't use it.
Complete bullshit. It can and is open in the context or the "open web", it just isn't free. You keep saying you understand the difference between free and open, but you keep demonstrating that you don't.
Firefox isn't using it because they are suffering from the same delusions and misguided desire for ideological purity as you. There is nothing stopping Firefox from using it but stubbornness.
Holy shit! You didn't even read the abstract, where they clearly use the term "royalty-free"?
Read the abstract, please:
"The goal of this policy is to assure that Recommendations produced under this policy can be implemented on a Royalty-Free (RF) basis."
Huh? Releasing the specifications for anyone to implement it freely means "not open"? Amazing logic.
Nope. WebM is an open-source project sponsored by Google and others. Google gave out an irrevocable unlimited license for WebM. They have made sure they can never make any sorts of claims about patents or anything like that against WebM. They can never take ownership again.
What about future development? Google and google alone decides what happens as it relates to it's codec and others can submit things in the hopes that google will include it in it's codec? That's not open. That's a deal breaker. It's not like HTML 5 at all where a large group of people decide the fate of HTML5. Google should submit WebM to the w3c. Did you even read the link that's from google's own website?
Now you are just getting pathetic. I haven't been anti-Apple at all. Just because I point out your blatant fanboyism and hypocrisy doesn't mean I'm anti-Apple. Do you represent Apple?
Oh no! Two people disagree with you, therefore they are organized!
So what you are saying is that users of Apple products cannot possibly argue in favor of an open web? Amazing.
I argue in favor of an open web -- just not yours (which seems to remain something you cannot or will not define).
When you graduate debating class and get a little experience under your belt, i suggest we revisit this topic -- some real world experience has a way of moderating idealism.
I really shouldn't be replying to a bunch of fan___s (this is a biased-towards-Apple forum, after all), but I feel like I should step in and mention this:
DON'T debate about video standards and the such unless you have created one yourself that is patent free and can have high bitrates with low sizes.
DON'T debate about "open" unless you are a lawyer, understand the implications of not "open" and pluses of "open", and understand that "open" is NOT necessarily royalty free.
To interject my opinion - I like how they're ditching H.264, but hate how they think WebM is a good replacement for it. OGG is worse. If at all, they should be grouping their best mathematicians and create a codec, like a mini codec project from FFMPEG (which, needless to say, seems to be dead).
That's all I'll say. I doubt you'll take any advice, but oh well.
EDIT: The codec in question is Snow, which is pretty interesting, considering it beats x264 (and possibly H.264), according to some people at Doom9:
According to your logic... Mozilla and Opera too, no? Mozilla is the one with the biggest browser share, at least, and decided against H.264 long before Chrome.
i will make it simple for you: show us exactly where we can find who determines the 'accepted definition' and what this accepted definition is? web link? page in a dictionary?
Seriously, you're going to play the fool with us? An open standard is one which is available for anyone to implement. It doesn't have to be free to be considered an open standard. This is pretty much the commonly accepted definition for probably longer than you have been alive.
... They can keep using Flash while the transition to WebM is still going on. But it will be in their interest to support native video in browsers. And they can just re-encode to WebM instead of h264.
Why would they since H.264 already works fine with Flash? More importantly, why should they have to just so Google can control video on the Web?
Quote:
Originally Posted by insike
No, the bullshit here is entirely yours. H264 is incompatible with the open web, and WebM is not proprietary. I know you hate Google and desperately want to defend Apple, but stop the lies now, please.
Are you just here to troll? A shill who's not very skilled? Just not really much to say?
You keep repeating the same discredited nonsense over and over again. Repeating it doesn't make it true, and it isn't true. H.264 is the open video standard. WebM is a proprietary codec controlled by Google that has nothing open about it. H.264 fosters the open Web, not Google's proprietary codec, any more than Flash does.
Would love to know your conspiracy theory about how Firefox and Opera are trying to "control the web" with WebM.
So, you quote me as indicating that they aren't trying to control the web, just behaving stupidly, then ask me to explain how they are trying to control the web? Who's behaving stupidly now?
Comments
There's every reason to believe that the easiest path for video encoders is to simply serve their H.264 content in a Flash wrapper to clients that don't have H.264 straight up.
Video sites are already re-encoding videos into multiple formats.
Why would they go through the trouble of re-encoding huge libraries when Google's patently self serving embrace of "open standards" allows them to continue to use Flash?
They can keep using Flash while the transition to WebM is still going on. But it will be in their interest to support native video in browsers. And they can just re-encode to WebM instead of h264.
If Google had announced they were dropping support of Flash in the interest of openness I would be extremely impressed.
That would be quite silly. Video on the web today is basically Flash. If you don't support Flash, you are not going to keep your users.
As it is-- dropping the ubiquitous, well performing and ratified standard but keeping the ubiquitous, poorly performing and proprietary format, claiming that ubiquity on the one hand requires support but that on the other does not-- I call bullshit.
No, the bullshit here is entirely yours. H264 is incompatible with the open web, and WebM is not proprietary. I know you hate Google and desperately want to defend Apple, but stop the lies now, please.
I have read w3c patent policy.
I wasn't able to find any single occurrence of the words "open standard".
And guess what? I bet you know.
W3C define his standards (as ISO* do) and if someone wants to submit technology to w3c that technology must be "royalty free".*
If mpeg-la sues google over WebM, WebM is not eligible for w3c submission, right?
And, by the way, Google hasn't yet submitted WebM to w3c.
Tantum debeat about word "standard" in "open standard" statement.
What about openness?
Google itself declare: "The VP8 and WebM specifications as released on May 19th, 2010 are final".
Point. Not open at all.
http://www.webmproject.org/about/faq/
What about improvements?
Google states "If there are significant improvements to warrant a new revision we might adopt them, but only after careful consideration and after discussing suggested changes with the WebM community". What does it means here "after discussing"? Anything different from "everyone speaks, google decides"? Who has decisional rights in WebM "community" (not "project")? Who will vote?
Have you some more doubts about openness? Read the License agreement for Contributors to WebM project:
http://code.google.com/intl/it-IT/le...-cla-v1.0.html
"You [contributors] hereby grant to Google and to recipients of software distributed by Google a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute Your Contributions and such derivative works."
If i don't make mistakes, this means that contributors confer their IP to Google (not to "WebM project") and implicitly give faculty of distribution to Google (not to "WebM project").
"WebM project" seems not an independent board like ISO, but a project firmly owned by Google.
Google does his own interest, as Apple does, and now advantages Adobe Flash.
Nor Google is good, nor Apple is evil. But Google makes his money mostly from advertisers; Microsoft from OEMs; Apple from users.
Overall, I dislike Flash and Adobe.
* Incorrect
Open Standard: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_standard
An open standard is a standard that is publicly available and has various rights to use associated with it, and may also have various properties of how it was designed (e.g. open process). There is no single definition and interpretations do vary with usage.
The terms "open" and "standard" have a wide range of meanings associated with their usage. There are number of definitions of open standards which emphasize different aspects of openness, including of the resulting specification, the openness of the drafting process, and the ownership of rights in the standard. The term "standard" is sometimes restricted to technologies approved by formalized committees that are open to participation by all interested parties and operate on a consensus basis.
The definitions of the term "open standard" used by academics, the European Union and some of its member governments or parliaments such as Denmark, France, and Spain preclude open standards requiring fees for use, as do the New Zealand, South African and the Venezuelan governments. On the standard organisation side, the W3C ensures that its specifications can be implemented on a Royalty-Free (RF) basis.
Many definitions of the term "standard" permit patent holders to impose "reasonable and non-discriminatory" royalty fees and other licensing terms on implementers and/or users of the standard. For example, the rules for standards published by the major internationally recognized standards bodies such as the IETF, ISO, IEC, and ITU-T permit their standards to contain specifications whose implementation will require payment of patent licensing fees. Among these organizations, only the IETF and ITU-T explicitly refer to their standards as "open standards", while the others refer only to producing "standards". The IETF and ITU-T use definitions of "open standard" that allow "reasonable and non-discriminatory" patent licensing fee requirements.
Will Chrome continue supporting the GIF/Jpeg image formats? Did they work out a deal with Unisys/Compuserve or whoever owns them?
Excellent point. The gif patents have expired now, but this shows that it was a huge mistake to not require a baseline codec for html5 video. There should be a baseline format which is open and free, to avoid proprietary technologies from taking over. Like h264 was threatening to take over, and close video on the web.
That would be quite silly. Video on the web today is basically Flash. If you don't support Flash, you are not going to keep your users.
And Flash is mainly h.264
Ya' know... I've read your last 30, or so, posts -- and you just keep repeating the same arbitrary, unsupported statements.
On the contrary, I have consistently pointed to well known definitions and exposed the amazing hypocrisy of the Apple fanboy brigade.
You never address the challenges to your assertions. Many of these challenges are made by members who have reputations for fairness, sound reasoning and willingness to evaluate all points presented.
Nonsense. I have addressed every single issue I have come across.
You are not contributing to the discussion.
On the contrary, I am correcting blatant lies, such as WebM being proprietary and h264 being an open standard.
If you can prove that h.264 is not a de facto standard -- let's see/hear it.
I never said h264 isn't a standard. It's a standard alright. I'm pointing out that it is not an open standard. The W3C requires open web standards to be royalty-free. In fact, even Microsoft of all companies agrees that open standards are royalty-free.
MPEG LA is already saying they believe that WebM already violates some MPEG LA patents. If WebM gets any of the major improvements it needs would also mean more patent violations = LAWSUIT(s).
Google making WebM available free, WITHOUT PATENT INDEMNIFICATION, should tell everyone all they need to know about WebM.
Logically, why does this matter? Apple already pays the license fee for h.264. Why would they be hit by a law suit related to h.264?
Whenever a discussion on AI involves Apple and Google on different sides of an issue -- the forum seems to be monopolized by a tag team of anti-Apple posters, who seem to play off each other's posts.
Now you are just getting pathetic. I haven't been anti-Apple at all. Just because I point out your blatant fanboyism and hypocrisy doesn't mean I'm anti-Apple. Do you represent Apple?
This happens so predictably that it is hard to believe that it is not orchastrated.
Oh no! Two people disagree with you, therefore they are organized!
What I don't understand is what the Apple haters hope to accomplish -- at best they make AI a more popular site, at worst they look pretty stupid vis a vis a reasonable discussion, while doing nothing to advance their agenda.
So what you are saying is that users of Apple products cannot possibly argue in favor of an open web? Amazing.
I have read w3c patent policy.
I wasn't able to find any single occurrence of the words "open standard".
Holy shit! You didn't even read the abstract, where they clearly use the term "royalty-free"?
And guess what? I bet you know.
W3C define his standards (as ISO do) and if someone wants to submit technology to w3c that technology must be "royalty free".
Read the abstract, please:
"The goal of this policy is to assure that Recommendations produced under this policy can be implemented on a Royalty-Free (RF) basis."
What about openness?
Google itself declare: "The VP8 and WebM specifications as released on May 19th, 2010 are final".
Point. Not open at all.
http://www.webmproject.org/about/faq/
Huh? Releasing the specifications for anyone to implement it freely means "not open"? Amazing logic.
Have you some more doubts about openness? Read the License agreement for Contributors to WebM project:
http://code.google.com/intl/it-IT/le...-cla-v1.0.html
"You [contributors] hereby grant to Google and to recipients of software distributed by Google a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute Your Contributions and such derivative works."
If i don't make mistakes, this means that contributors confer their IP to Google (not to "WebM project") and implicitly give faculty of distribution to Google (not to "WebM project").
"WebM project" seems not an independent board like ISO, but a project firmly owned by Google.
Nope. WebM is an open-source project sponsored by Google and others. Google gave out an irrevocable unlimited license for WebM. They have made sure they can never make any sorts of claims about patents or anything like that against WebM. They can never take ownership again.
You invest the hundreds of Billions to make your pipe dream happen. Otherwise, get back to Reality.
And there you have it. The open web is a pipe dream. Case closed.
And Flash is mainly h.264
Whether that is true or not, it's irrelevant. It's still Flash.
Yes, I do. We are talking about open web. H.264 can't be considered open in the context of open web because it is patent-encumbered.
This was said already, and this is why Firefox and others can't use it.
Complete bullshit. It can and is open in the context or the "open web", it just isn't free. You keep saying you understand the difference between free and open, but you keep demonstrating that you don't.
Firefox isn't using it because they are suffering from the same delusions and misguided desire for ideological purity as you. There is nothing stopping Firefox from using it but stubbornness.
Holy shit! You didn't even read the abstract, where they clearly use the term "royalty-free"?
Read the abstract, please:
"The goal of this policy is to assure that Recommendations produced under this policy can be implemented on a Royalty-Free (RF) basis."
Huh? Releasing the specifications for anyone to implement it freely means "not open"? Amazing logic.
Nope. WebM is an open-source project sponsored by Google and others. Google gave out an irrevocable unlimited license for WebM. They have made sure they can never make any sorts of claims about patents or anything like that against WebM. They can never take ownership again.
What about future development? Google and google alone decides what happens as it relates to it's codec and others can submit things in the hopes that google will include it in it's codec? That's not open. That's a deal breaker. It's not like HTML 5 at all where a large group of people decide the fate of HTML5. Google should submit WebM to the w3c. Did you even read the link that's from google's own website?
Now you are just getting pathetic. I haven't been anti-Apple at all. Just because I point out your blatant fanboyism and hypocrisy doesn't mean I'm anti-Apple. Do you represent Apple?
Oh no! Two people disagree with you, therefore they are organized!
So what you are saying is that users of Apple products cannot possibly argue in favor of an open web? Amazing.
I argue in favor of an open web -- just not yours (which seems to remain something you cannot or will not define).
When you graduate debating class and get a little experience under your belt, i suggest we revisit this topic -- some real world experience has a way of moderating idealism.
DON'T debate about video standards and the such unless you have created one yourself that is patent free and can have high bitrates with low sizes.
DON'T debate about "open" unless you are a lawyer, understand the implications of not "open" and pluses of "open", and understand that "open" is NOT necessarily royalty free.
To interject my opinion - I like how they're ditching H.264, but hate how they think WebM is a good replacement for it. OGG is worse. If at all, they should be grouping their best mathematicians and create a codec, like a mini codec project from FFMPEG (which, needless to say, seems to be dead).
That's all I'll say. I doubt you'll take any advice, but oh well.
EDIT: The codec in question is Snow, which is pretty interesting, considering it beats x264 (and possibly H.264), according to some people at Doom9:
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=561350
According to your logic... Mozilla and Opera too, no? Mozilla is the one with the biggest browser share, at least, and decided against H.264 long before Chrome.
No, they're just behaving stupidly
i will make it simple for you: show us exactly where we can find who determines the 'accepted definition' and what this accepted definition is? web link? page in a dictionary?
Seriously, you're going to play the fool with us? An open standard is one which is available for anyone to implement. It doesn't have to be free to be considered an open standard. This is pretty much the commonly accepted definition for probably longer than you have been alive.
No, they're just behaving stupidly
Great argument.
Would love to know your conspiracy theory about how Firefox and Opera are trying to "control the web" with WebM.
... They can keep using Flash while the transition to WebM is still going on. But it will be in their interest to support native video in browsers. And they can just re-encode to WebM instead of h264.
Why would they since H.264 already works fine with Flash? More importantly, why should they have to just so Google can control video on the Web?
No, the bullshit here is entirely yours. H264 is incompatible with the open web, and WebM is not proprietary. I know you hate Google and desperately want to defend Apple, but stop the lies now, please.
Are you just here to troll? A shill who's not very skilled? Just not really much to say?
You keep repeating the same discredited nonsense over and over again. Repeating it doesn't make it true, and it isn't true. H.264 is the open video standard. WebM is a proprietary codec controlled by Google that has nothing open about it. H.264 fosters the open Web, not Google's proprietary codec, any more than Flash does.
And there you have it. The open web is a pipe dream. Case closed.
Well, it's certainly a pipe dream if we allow Google to control it, as you would.
Great argument.
Would love to know your conspiracy theory about how Firefox and Opera are trying to "control the web" with WebM.
So, you quote me as indicating that they aren't trying to control the web, just behaving stupidly, then ask me to explain how they are trying to control the web? Who's behaving stupidly now?