It's just odd for Google to make these moves against Apple.
Why are so many Apple fans paranoid on behalf of Apple?
Quote:
By pushing WebM on Chrome the only likely outcome will be a better Safari to attempt to crush Chrome on Windows as opposed to its current somewhat neglected state.
Yeah, right
Quote:
If they force WebM on YouTube...well...ask MySpace on how quickly the landscape can change. Vimeo seems like a reasonable alternative if iOS gets locked out of YouTube content.
iOS makes up a tiny part of the market, unfortunately
Well, it looks like insike's shift has started again. He hasn't said anything new, or actually responded to anything in a meaningful way, so there's no point in following his mistaken arguments around the circle again. I don't think his employers are getting their money's worth.
Why are so many Apple fans paranoid on behalf of Apple?
I don't believe that there's any secret that they are competing and that iAds is a shot across the bow at Google to back off. Google didn't and instead went after a key piece of Apple's video strategy.
You can compete and not make it a big deal. Or you can antagonize your opponent into attacking your own critical areas that they typically wouldn't bother doing because its out of their swim lane. Like ads.
Quote:
Yeah, right
Given that they are both webkit browsers it wouldn't be hard or all that expensive to throw more effort into making Safari more competitive. There was no real need to until now although I do like that they added extensions without that need anyway.
Quote:
iOS makes up a tiny part of the market, unfortunately
1.69% worldwide web usage and growing. That's higher than Linux and takes the #3 spot behind Windows and OSX. That's actual marketshare. Mindshare is even huger. Losing iOS users for YouTube is as big a hit as losing YouTube is for iOS.
No, it means it isn't free. Free doesn't mean open and open doesn't mean free.
Quote:
Originally Posted by insike
If h264 wins, the implication is that a closed standard becomes a central part of the web, and that is a huge step back.
No, it means a not-free, but open (and as in anyone is free to create an implementation of it; there are open-source implementations of both an H.264 encoder and H.264 decoder. The encoder in particular, x264, is one of the best H.264 encoders that you can get) standard becomes a central part of video on the web. You have not once attempted to explain how or why this is bad. On the other hand I have detailed exactly why a win for WebM presents absolutely zero benefits for any end-user of the web and in fact results in plenty of significant drawbacks. I have also suggested that it is a waste of human effort to work on WebM when vastly superior solutions to the problem of video delivery over the web already exist.
Why are so many Apple fans paranoid on behalf of Apple?
Yeah, right
iOS makes up a tiny part of the market, unfortunately
Google already has a method of pushing video to iPhone. More importantly people aren't using their phones for video as it stands right now. However, with the Ipad, that may change as far as iOS video usage. I am not paranoid. I just know Google's business is people's personal information. Apple's business is computer hardware. Google uses software to sell your information to big businesses. Apple uses software to sell you their hardware.
I certainly agree with the sentiment of the FSF. However, I don't want one company having undue influence overvideo codecs and and picture files. If Google was willing to make WebM/VP8 codec a superior technology to h.264/h.265 and gift it to the w3c, then I could support their position more fully on the matter of them discontinuing support of h.264. You can go back to being all hysterical and shrill if you want but at least half of developers are saying this.
I certainly agree with the sentiment of the FSF. However, I don't want one company having undue influence overvideo codecs and and picture files. If Google was willing to make WebM/VP8 codec a superior technology to h.264/h.265 and gift it to the w3c, then I could support their position more fully on the matter of them discontinuing support of h.264. You can go back to being all hysterical and shrill if you want but at least half of developers are saying this.
They would not need to discontinue H.264 support; they could let the improved technology standon its own.
Well, it looks like insike's shift has started again. He hasn't said anything new, or actually responded to anything in a meaningful way, so there's no point in following his mistaken arguments around the circle again. I don't think his employers are getting their money's worth.
And this is coming from the Apple fanboy who can't even read the W3C patent policy, and if he did, he pretends he didn't because he realizes it kicks the shit out of his argument.
Face it: H264 can never become an open web standard. Open web standards need to be royalty-free. You cannot escape this fact. You can spew conspiracy theories until the end of the world, but it won't change this simple fact.
I don't believe that there's any secret that they are competing and that iAds is a shot across the bow at Google to back off.
What utter nonsense. Do you really think a company like Apple would be so retarded as to pull a stunt like that? When Apple does iAds it's because there's money to be made. That's the reason behind business decisions.
Quote:
You can compete and not make it a big deal. Or you can antagonize your opponent into attacking your own critical areas that they typically wouldn't bother doing because its out of their swim lane. Like ads.
You are joking, right? Mobile ads are expected to be huge in the future. Why would Google, an online ad monopoly, not want to make money from ads on mobile phones?
Quote:
Given that they are both webkit browsers it wouldn't be hard or all that expensive to throw more effort into making Safari more competitive.
The engine is the least important part there. It isn't the engine that makes Safari less than competitive on Windows.
Quote:
1.69% worldwide web usage and growing.
But then there's Android...
I can see why Apple fanboys are worried. But it's just business. Businesses want to make money. There's money in mobile advertising, and Apple does mobile phones, while Google does advertising. Of course they are going to start crossing the river to make more money.
Quote:
Losing iOS users for YouTube is as big a hit as losing YouTube is for iOS.
Google already has a method of pushing video to iPhone. More importantly people aren't using their phones for video as it stands right now. However, with the Ipad, that may change as far as iOS video usage.
But any video over mobile networks is going to, well, not be very pleasant due to bandwidth caps.
Quote:
I am not paranoid. I just know Google's business is people's personal information. Apple's business is computer hardware.
Google's business is advertising. Apple is also moving heavily into advertising. But I guess it's only bad when Google does it
Quote:
I don't want one company having undue influence overvideo codecs and and picture files.
You're in luck. WebM is run as an open-source project, and anyone can use it for anything. Heck, the W3C could fork it and make it part of HTML5. They would have an irrevocable license.
Quote:
You can go back to being all hysterical and shrill
insike, it's not about being paranoid. Concerns about Google aside, the issue is that WebM is a lousy codec that may already infringe patents and will certainly infringe patents as it is improved. You all want a big superb open web standard, come up with a decent non-patent-infringing codec. Till, then...
And this is coming from the Apple fanboy who can't even read the W3C patent policy, and if he did, he pretends he didn't because he realizes it kicks the shit out of his argument.
Face it: H264 can never become an open web standard. Open web standards need to be royalty-free. You cannot escape this fact. You can spew conspiracy theories until the end of the world, but it won't change this simple fact.
And here he is again, right on schedule.
Just for the record, WebM can never become a W3C standard either since it will be a patent encumbered nightmare for anyone who attempts to use it. You and your employer cannot escape this fact. You can spew bullshit until the end of the world, but it won't change this simple fact.
And this is coming from the Apple fanboy who can't even read the W3C patent policy, and if he did, he pretends he didn't because he realizes it kicks the shit out of his argument.
Face it: H264 can never become an open web standard. Open web standards need to be royalty-free. You cannot escape this fact. You can spew conspiracy theories until the end of the world, but it won't change this simple fact.
Have you ever read the W3C patent policy?> here it is: http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/. Section 5 is the get down to business section and specifically item 3 allow patent grants to be made only with respect to the specific W3C technology implementation.
Since the August shift in MPEG-LA H.264 licensing terms it is fully compatible with the spirit and intent of item 3. Section 4 also lists a whole bunch of reasons W3C considers valid for members to exclude inclusion of their patents. The late take on patent inclusion and indemnification on all sides of the issue is just plain irrelevant given the actual requirements and exclusion mechanisms for patent inclusion to participate in W3C Working Groups. Meaning the continuing reluctance of Mozilla and Google to accept H.264 is not grounded on a hard web standards problem, but on other political and business interests.
Remember the Mozilla Corporation gets the vast majority of its funding directly from Google via straight grants and in search revenue sharing, and that funding further gets passed along to support the non-profit Mozilla Foundation. I see reasons to suspect any policy independence of Google and Mozilla. here is nothing wrong or immoral about that, it is a valid business relationship. But we all have to respect that close business relationship and its directly trackable funding stream before we make judgements about whether Mozilla is making a pure philosophical pronouncement against H.264 or if they are keeping their sugar-daddy partner happy.
Now can H.264 ever become web standard? It cant! Neither can WebM! That is a misapplication of the role of W3C altogether. A single implementation of one method to comply with a standard (actually a W3C Recommendation) tag is never considered a standard. Officially, W3C Recommendations require implementation and interoperability, that requires more than one implementation that adheres to the Recommendation(standard)! W3C is happiest when one of those implementations is open source, but that is not required.
So lets stop trying to stand behind the shield of W3C when you so thoroughly show you don't understand what you are either reading or making up. You could start here if you want to really learn what the W3C Recommendation process is. There's a lot more too if you want to get involved, you can.
This is such a load of crap. Google does not need to pay any licences for the h.264 decoder in Chrome. It is not a commercial product therefore it gets a free licence. What google does have to pay for however, is encoding all the youtube commercials with h.264 with. And since google's business model revolves around selling advertisement this presents a bit of a problem. I bet Google though, well why should we have to pay a licence for using the technology if we use our own codecs. Only that kind of logic does not fly in America or pretty much anywhere else where you have patent laws.
I am sick and tired of Google trying to explain how it is in everyone's best interest and how they are saving the little guy and the world from the evil that h.264 is. And while we are on the topic since when does "Do no evil!" mean "Do no evil but you can lie through your teeth!"? And yes I am writing this from within Chrome since I am stuck on this Windows computer for a few more hours but enough is enough Google. Quite frankly, if I have to use a plugin for video, I might as well stay with Flash regardless of how horrible it is. Oh and good luck getting around the iCrowd Google. Apple will allow Flash on iDevices before they bundle a semi-open Google codec!
This is such a load of crap. Google does not need to pay any licences for the h.264 decoder in Chrome. It is not a commercial product therefore it gets a free licence. What google does have to pay for however, is encoding all the youtube commercials with h.264 with. And since google's business model revolves around selling advertisement this presents a bit of a problem. I bet Google though, well why should we have to pay a licence for using the technology if we use our own codecs. Only that kind of logic does not fly in America or pretty much anywhere else where you have patent laws.
I am sick and tired of Google trying to explain how it is in everyone's best interest and how they are saving the little guy and the world from the evil that h.264 is. And while we are on the topic since when does "Do no evil!" mean "Do no evil but you can lie through your teeth!"? And yes I am writing this from within Chrome since I am stuck on this Windows computer for a few more hours but enough is enough Google. Quite frankly, if I have to use a plugin for video, I might as well stay with Flash regardless of how horrible it is. Oh and good luck getting around the iCrowd Google. Apple will allow Flash on iDevices before they bundle a semi-open Google codec!
People should know that WebM actually performs worse than flash. Just want to point that out.
insike, it's not about being paranoid. Concerns about Google aside, the issue is that WebM is a lousy codec that may already infringe patents and will certainly infringe patents as it is improved.
Yes, it is indeed about being paranoid. All of this is because Google is a huge threat to Apple, and hardcore Apple fanboys refuse to let it go. Thus, FUD.
WebM is not a lousy codec at all. By making such obviously false statements, you are showing just how desperate you are.
On2's business was based around avoiding patents, and patenting their own technologies. It's more likely that h264 infringes on On2 patents than the other way around, since On2 did a lot of research to avoid patent infringement, whereas the MPEG-LA simply threw everything into a common patent pool and hoped for the best.
Quote:
You all want a big superb open web standard, come up with a decent non-patent-infringing codec. Till, then...
FUD from desperate Apple fanboys is quite common these days.
And the bottom line: H264 can never be part of any open web standard.
Have you ever read the W3C patent policy?> here it is: http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/. Section 5 is the get down to business section and specifically item 3 allow patent grants to be made only with respect to the specific W3C technology implementation.
The W3C patent policy defines how open web standards published by the W3C relate to patents.
Quote:
Since the August shift in MPEG-LA H.264 licensing terms it is fully compatible with the spirit and intent of item 3.
Incorrect.
Quote:
Section 4 also lists a whole bunch of reasons W3C considers valid for members to exclude inclusion of their patents.
Yes, this means that members can do this and avoid having the standard infringe on their patents. But this means that the W3C would have to find a way around it. It doesn't mean that they will allow anyone to collect royalties from open web standards.
Quote:
Meaning the continuing reluctance of Mozilla and Google to accept H.264 is not grounded on a hard web standards problem, but on other political and business interests.
Utter nonsense. Mozilla wants an open web, and open web advocates have universally rejected h264, and at the same time applauded Google's move.
Quote:
I see reasons to suspect any policy independence of Google and Mozilla.
Pure and utter nonsense again. Mozilla is an independent organization, and they have even been considering dropping Google. They will use the best search engine, and are not loyal to Google in the least.
Quote:
Now can H.264 ever become web standard? It cant! Neither can WebM!
Comments
You Apple sheeple crack me up. How dare you insert fact into this discussion.
"Facts", like paranoid delusions? Nice.
URL to a legal judgment demonstrating patent infringement?
You are asking for something of substance? In this forum?
It's just odd for Google to make these moves against Apple.
Why are so many Apple fans paranoid on behalf of Apple?
By pushing WebM on Chrome the only likely outcome will be a better Safari to attempt to crush Chrome on Windows as opposed to its current somewhat neglected state.
Yeah, right
If they force WebM on YouTube...well...ask MySpace on how quickly the landscape can change. Vimeo seems like a reasonable alternative if iOS gets locked out of YouTube content.
iOS makes up a tiny part of the market, unfortunately
Why are so many Apple fans paranoid on behalf of Apple?
I don't believe that there's any secret that they are competing and that iAds is a shot across the bow at Google to back off. Google didn't and instead went after a key piece of Apple's video strategy.
You can compete and not make it a big deal. Or you can antagonize your opponent into attacking your own critical areas that they typically wouldn't bother doing because its out of their swim lane. Like ads.
Yeah, right
Given that they are both webkit browsers it wouldn't be hard or all that expensive to throw more effort into making Safari more competitive. There was no real need to until now although I do like that they added extensions without that need anyway.
iOS makes up a tiny part of the market, unfortunately
1.69% worldwide web usage and growing. That's higher than Linux and takes the #3 spot behind Windows and OSX. That's actual marketshare. Mindshare is even huger. Losing iOS users for YouTube is as big a hit as losing YouTube is for iOS.
Which means that it isn't open.
No, it means it isn't free. Free doesn't mean open and open doesn't mean free.
If h264 wins, the implication is that a closed standard becomes a central part of the web, and that is a huge step back.
No, it means a not-free, but open (and as in anyone is free to create an implementation of it; there are open-source implementations of both an H.264 encoder and H.264 decoder. The encoder in particular, x264, is one of the best H.264 encoders that you can get) standard becomes a central part of video on the web. You have not once attempted to explain how or why this is bad. On the other hand I have detailed exactly why a win for WebM presents absolutely zero benefits for any end-user of the web and in fact results in plenty of significant drawbacks. I have also suggested that it is a waste of human effort to work on WebM when vastly superior solutions to the problem of video delivery over the web already exist.
Why are so many Apple fans paranoid on behalf of Apple?
Yeah, right
iOS makes up a tiny part of the market, unfortunately
Google already has a method of pushing video to iPhone. More importantly people aren't using their phones for video as it stands right now. However, with the Ipad, that may change as far as iOS video usage. I am not paranoid. I just know Google's business is people's personal information. Apple's business is computer hardware. Google uses software to sell your information to big businesses. Apple uses software to sell you their hardware.
I certainly agree with the sentiment of the FSF. However, I don't want one company having undue influence overvideo codecs and and picture files. If Google was willing to make WebM/VP8 codec a superior technology to h.264/h.265 and gift it to the w3c, then I could support their position more fully on the matter of them discontinuing support of h.264. You can go back to being all hysterical and shrill if you want but at least half of developers are saying this.
http://antimatter15.com/wp/2011/01/t...-vp8-vs-h-264/
I certainly agree with the sentiment of the FSF. However, I don't want one company having undue influence overvideo codecs and and picture files. If Google was willing to make WebM/VP8 codec a superior technology to h.264/h.265 and gift it to the w3c, then I could support their position more fully on the matter of them discontinuing support of h.264. You can go back to being all hysterical and shrill if you want but at least half of developers are saying this.
They would not need to discontinue H.264 support; they could let the improved technology standon its own.
Well, it looks like insike's shift has started again. He hasn't said anything new, or actually responded to anything in a meaningful way, so there's no point in following his mistaken arguments around the circle again. I don't think his employers are getting their money's worth.
And this is coming from the Apple fanboy who can't even read the W3C patent policy, and if he did, he pretends he didn't because he realizes it kicks the shit out of his argument.
Face it: H264 can never become an open web standard. Open web standards need to be royalty-free. You cannot escape this fact. You can spew conspiracy theories until the end of the world, but it won't change this simple fact.
I don't believe that there's any secret that they are competing and that iAds is a shot across the bow at Google to back off.
What utter nonsense. Do you really think a company like Apple would be so retarded as to pull a stunt like that? When Apple does iAds it's because there's money to be made. That's the reason behind business decisions.
You can compete and not make it a big deal. Or you can antagonize your opponent into attacking your own critical areas that they typically wouldn't bother doing because its out of their swim lane. Like ads.
You are joking, right? Mobile ads are expected to be huge in the future. Why would Google, an online ad monopoly, not want to make money from ads on mobile phones?
Given that they are both webkit browsers it wouldn't be hard or all that expensive to throw more effort into making Safari more competitive.
The engine is the least important part there. It isn't the engine that makes Safari less than competitive on Windows.
1.69% worldwide web usage and growing.
But then there's Android...
I can see why Apple fanboys are worried. But it's just business. Businesses want to make money. There's money in mobile advertising, and Apple does mobile phones, while Google does advertising. Of course they are going to start crossing the river to make more money.
Losing iOS users for YouTube is as big a hit as losing YouTube is for iOS.
Android.
Google already has a method of pushing video to iPhone. More importantly people aren't using their phones for video as it stands right now. However, with the Ipad, that may change as far as iOS video usage.
But any video over mobile networks is going to, well, not be very pleasant due to bandwidth caps.
I am not paranoid. I just know Google's business is people's personal information. Apple's business is computer hardware.
Google's business is advertising. Apple is also moving heavily into advertising. But I guess it's only bad when Google does it
I don't want one company having undue influence overvideo codecs and and picture files.
You're in luck. WebM is run as an open-source project, and anyone can use it for anything. Heck, the W3C could fork it and make it part of HTML5. They would have an irrevocable license.
You can go back to being all hysterical and shrill
That's rich coming from a paranoid Apple fan.
And this is coming from the Apple fanboy who can't even read the W3C patent policy, and if he did, he pretends he didn't because he realizes it kicks the shit out of his argument.
Face it: H264 can never become an open web standard. Open web standards need to be royalty-free. You cannot escape this fact. You can spew conspiracy theories until the end of the world, but it won't change this simple fact.
And here he is again, right on schedule.
Just for the record, WebM can never become a W3C standard either since it will be a patent encumbered nightmare for anyone who attempts to use it. You and your employer cannot escape this fact. You can spew bullshit until the end of the world, but it won't change this simple fact.
And this is coming from the Apple fanboy who can't even read the W3C patent policy, and if he did, he pretends he didn't because he realizes it kicks the shit out of his argument.
Face it: H264 can never become an open web standard. Open web standards need to be royalty-free. You cannot escape this fact. You can spew conspiracy theories until the end of the world, but it won't change this simple fact.
Have you ever read the W3C patent policy?> here it is: http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/. Section 5 is the get down to business section and specifically item 3 allow patent grants to be made only with respect to the specific W3C technology implementation.
Since the August shift in MPEG-LA H.264 licensing terms it is fully compatible with the spirit and intent of item 3. Section 4 also lists a whole bunch of reasons W3C considers valid for members to exclude inclusion of their patents. The late take on patent inclusion and indemnification on all sides of the issue is just plain irrelevant given the actual requirements and exclusion mechanisms for patent inclusion to participate in W3C Working Groups. Meaning the continuing reluctance of Mozilla and Google to accept H.264 is not grounded on a hard web standards problem, but on other political and business interests.
Remember the Mozilla Corporation gets the vast majority of its funding directly from Google via straight grants and in search revenue sharing, and that funding further gets passed along to support the non-profit Mozilla Foundation. I see reasons to suspect any policy independence of Google and Mozilla. here is nothing wrong or immoral about that, it is a valid business relationship. But we all have to respect that close business relationship and its directly trackable funding stream before we make judgements about whether Mozilla is making a pure philosophical pronouncement against H.264 or if they are keeping their sugar-daddy partner happy.
Now can H.264 ever become web standard? It cant! Neither can WebM! That is a misapplication of the role of W3C altogether. A single implementation of one method to comply with a standard (actually a W3C Recommendation) tag is never considered a standard. Officially, W3C Recommendations require implementation and interoperability, that requires more than one implementation that adheres to the Recommendation(standard)! W3C is happiest when one of those implementations is open source, but that is not required.
So lets stop trying to stand behind the shield of W3C when you so thoroughly show you don't understand what you are either reading or making up. You could start here if you want to really learn what the W3C Recommendation process is. There's a lot more too if you want to get involved, you can.
I am sick and tired of Google trying to explain how it is in everyone's best interest and how they are saving the little guy and the world from the evil that h.264 is. And while we are on the topic since when does "Do no evil!" mean "Do no evil but you can lie through your teeth!"? And yes I am writing this from within Chrome since I am stuck on this Windows computer for a few more hours but enough is enough Google. Quite frankly, if I have to use a plugin for video, I might as well stay with Flash regardless of how horrible it is. Oh and good luck getting around the iCrowd Google. Apple will allow Flash on iDevices before they bundle a semi-open Google codec!
This is such a load of crap. Google does not need to pay any licences for the h.264 decoder in Chrome. It is not a commercial product therefore it gets a free licence. What google does have to pay for however, is encoding all the youtube commercials with h.264 with. And since google's business model revolves around selling advertisement this presents a bit of a problem. I bet Google though, well why should we have to pay a licence for using the technology if we use our own codecs. Only that kind of logic does not fly in America or pretty much anywhere else where you have patent laws.
I am sick and tired of Google trying to explain how it is in everyone's best interest and how they are saving the little guy and the world from the evil that h.264 is. And while we are on the topic since when does "Do no evil!" mean "Do no evil but you can lie through your teeth!"? And yes I am writing this from within Chrome since I am stuck on this Windows computer for a few more hours but enough is enough Google. Quite frankly, if I have to use a plugin for video, I might as well stay with Flash regardless of how horrible it is. Oh and good luck getting around the iCrowd Google. Apple will allow Flash on iDevices before they bundle a semi-open Google codec!
People should know that WebM actually performs worse than flash. Just want to point that out.
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/burnette/c...e_skin;content
Last word?
insike, it's not about being paranoid. Concerns about Google aside, the issue is that WebM is a lousy codec that may already infringe patents and will certainly infringe patents as it is improved.
Yes, it is indeed about being paranoid. All of this is because Google is a huge threat to Apple, and hardcore Apple fanboys refuse to let it go. Thus, FUD.
WebM is not a lousy codec at all. By making such obviously false statements, you are showing just how desperate you are.
On2's business was based around avoiding patents, and patenting their own technologies. It's more likely that h264 infringes on On2 patents than the other way around, since On2 did a lot of research to avoid patent infringement, whereas the MPEG-LA simply threw everything into a common patent pool and hoped for the best.
You all want a big superb open web standard, come up with a decent non-patent-infringing codec. Till, then...
FUD from desperate Apple fanboys is quite common these days.
And the bottom line: H264 can never be part of any open web standard.
Just for the record, WebM can never become a W3C standard either since it will be a patent encumbered nightmare for anyone who attempts to use it.
On the contrary. On2's business relied on avoiding infringement, and the W3C process will weed out any potential issues.
Have you ever read the W3C patent policy?> here it is: http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/. Section 5 is the get down to business section and specifically item 3 allow patent grants to be made only with respect to the specific W3C technology implementation.
The W3C patent policy defines how open web standards published by the W3C relate to patents.
Since the August shift in MPEG-LA H.264 licensing terms it is fully compatible with the spirit and intent of item 3.
Incorrect.
Section 4 also lists a whole bunch of reasons W3C considers valid for members to exclude inclusion of their patents.
Yes, this means that members can do this and avoid having the standard infringe on their patents. But this means that the W3C would have to find a way around it. It doesn't mean that they will allow anyone to collect royalties from open web standards.
Meaning the continuing reluctance of Mozilla and Google to accept H.264 is not grounded on a hard web standards problem, but on other political and business interests.
Utter nonsense. Mozilla wants an open web, and open web advocates have universally rejected h264, and at the same time applauded Google's move.
I see reasons to suspect any policy independence of Google and Mozilla.
Pure and utter nonsense again. Mozilla is an independent organization, and they have even been considering dropping Google. They will use the best search engine, and are not loyal to Google in the least.
Now can H.264 ever become web standard? It cant! Neither can WebM!
Wrong. WebM fits the criteria.