5 ms·

Mozilla's decision to push for Ogg seems like a classic programmer's response. They're attempting to solve the problem with an engineering solution. Unfortunat

Mozilla's decision to push for Ogg seems like a classic programmer's response. They're attempting to solve the problem with an engineering solution. Unfortunately, this won't be enough. If Mozilla want to usurp H.264, they'll either need a huge market share or budget (which they don't have) or technological superiority over H.264 (I don't think this is the case either). They're also fighting against Apple, who want H.264 to succeed.

ugh 17y ago
They do have a huge market share when it comes to HTML5 browsers, though. (Hm, the moment I’m writing this I’m starting to think about the iPhone and Android. So maybe not :)
windsurfer 17y ago
Mozilla isn't making any choices. supporting theora is their only option due to patents surrounding H.264. It has nothing to do with engineering, and everything to do with copyright and patents.
- briansmith 17y ago
  They're not supporting H.264 because they don't want to promote Windows 7 (or Mac OS X) over Linux. They could easily implement H.264 support for all operating systems that license H.264, and then let websites dynamically choose what to send based on what the operating system supports. However, that means Firefox would work better on Windows 7 and Mac OS X than it would on 100% legit Linux distros.
  - DrJokepu 17y ago
    I think this is an incredibly silly decision. Basically it boils down to "operating systems A and B support feature X while C doesn't, but we don't want operating system C to be at disadvantage so we will just disable access to feature X on A and B too."
  - psadauskas 17y ago
    That's already the case, though. JS performance and flash is far superior on windows than Linux already. So saying they don't want to make the windows experience better is not the case. Something like 80% of firefox users are on windows, and that's their primary target platform.
- DrJokepu 17y ago
  The difference is that Mozilla could make installing a H.264 decoder plug-in from some third party source on the first occasion the browser meets a H.264 video ridiculously easy if they chosen to. They did it with Flash, for example. But they've chosen not to.
  - windsurfer 17y ago
    Er, Flash plays H.264. They've already done that.
    - DrJokepu 17y ago
      Yes, but this discussion was about H.264 support in the <video> tag.
      - windsurfer 17y ago
        Yes, and there exists javascript libraries and user agent hacks to fix that already. My point was that this isn't an engineering problem.
halo 17y ago
If the H.264 video tag wants to win over Flash, they'll either need a huge market share or budget (which they don't have) or technological superiority over Flash (I don't think this is the case either). They're also fighting against Mozilla, who don't want H.264 to succeed.
- wmf 17y ago
  Chrome supports H.264 <video> and it has both huge budget and rapidly growing market share.
  - ZeroGravitas 17y ago
    Chrome supports Theora <video> and it has both huge budget and rapidly growing market share. Chromium supports only Theora <video> and it has both huge budget and growing market share. Google is in the process of paying $100 million for On2, a company whose business model was building video codecs that didn't infringe on anyone elses patents, and the original source for VP3 which was the basis for Theora.
    - blasdel 17y ago
      Almost nobody builds Chromium without trivially linking in ffmpeg. In the real world, Chromium supports every damn codec and container format. All of them. Safari has identical support with Perian installed, and Opera does too with gst-ffmpeg. The official Chrome supports Theora, Vorbis, H.264, AAC, MP3, and WAV in all reasonable container formats. Mozilla only supports Theora and Vorbis in ogm containers, plus WAV/RIFF for <audio>.
      - vetinari 17y ago
        Good luck with redistributing that ffmmpeg-linked build of Chromium. Or do you think that end-users are going to compile their browser?
        blasdel 17y ago
matthew-wegner 17y ago
Mozilla makes $80 million a year. That's not huge enough?
- ZeroGravitas 17y ago
  And has over 50% market share in some locations and about a third globally. And both Chrome and Opera are supporting Theora too which adds to the total for this particular fight.
  - evgen 17y ago
    In this case the browser market share doesn't mean much. It is mindshare among the people providing the videos that matters. The way this particular battle is going to play out is that Mozilla will stick to its guns for a while and will continue to lose marketshare to Chrome, video providers will encode in HTML5/h.264 and Flash and eventually Firefox users on video sites will start seeing messages similar to the ones IE6 users see on some sites. The wildcard in this is Microsoft. If someone over there develops a clue they will jump on the h.264 bandwagon just to hose Mozilla -- IE8 will stop bleeding marketshare and this will provoke the video providers to move hard and fast to HTML5/h.264, forcing MozillaCorp to eat the costs of buying h.264 licenses and sticking a sharp stick in Adobe's eye as icing on the cake.
    - ZeroGravitas 17y ago
      The first video provider to offer HTML5 video happened nearly a year ago and was dailymotion, who happen to have a euro focus, hence greater Firefox (+ Opera) adoption in their userbase. So that's a data point to Mozilla in the video provider mindshare column. Wikipedia's worth a mention too.
- FooBarWidget 17y ago
  In revenue. About 50% of that go to operating costs. Developers need to eat too and they need to have a buffer for the near future. It's not wise to spend it all on giving unlimited H.264 licenses to the world.

ugh 17y ago

They do have a huge market share when it comes to HTML5 browsers, though. (Hm, the moment I’m writing this I’m starting to think about the iPhone and Android. So maybe not :)

windsurfer 17y ago

Mozilla isn't making any choices. supporting theora is their only option due to patents surrounding H.264. It has nothing to do with engineering, and everything to do with copyright and patents.

briansmith 17y ago
They're not supporting H.264 because they don't want to promote Windows 7 (or Mac OS X) over Linux. They could easily implement H.264 support for all operating systems that license H.264, and then let websites dynamically choose what to send based on what the operating system supports. However, that means Firefox would work better on Windows 7 and Mac OS X than it would on 100% legit Linux distros.
- DrJokepu 17y ago
  I think this is an incredibly silly decision. Basically it boils down to "operating systems A and B support feature X while C doesn't, but we don't want operating system C to be at disadvantage so we will just disable access to feature X on A and B too."
- psadauskas 17y ago
  That's already the case, though. JS performance and flash is far superior on windows than Linux already. So saying they don't want to make the windows experience better is not the case. Something like 80% of firefox users are on windows, and that's their primary target platform.
DrJokepu 17y ago
The difference is that Mozilla could make installing a H.264 decoder plug-in from some third party source on the first occasion the browser meets a H.264 video ridiculously easy if they chosen to. They did it with Flash, for example. But they've chosen not to.
- windsurfer 17y ago
  Er, Flash plays H.264. They've already done that.
  - DrJokepu 17y ago
    Yes, but this discussion was about H.264 support in the <video> tag.
    - windsurfer 17y ago
      Yes, and there exists javascript libraries and user agent hacks to fix that already. My point was that this isn't an engineering problem.

halo 17y ago

If the H.264 video tag wants to win over Flash, they'll either need a huge market share or budget (which they don't have) or technological superiority over Flash (I don't think this is the case either). They're also fighting against Mozilla, who don't want H.264 to succeed.

wmf 17y ago
Chrome supports H.264 <video> and it has both huge budget and rapidly growing market share.
- ZeroGravitas 17y ago
  Chrome supports Theora <video> and it has both huge budget and rapidly growing market share. Chromium supports only Theora <video> and it has both huge budget and growing market share. Google is in the process of paying $100 million for On2, a company whose business model was building video codecs that didn't infringe on anyone elses patents, and the original source for VP3 which was the basis for Theora.
  - blasdel 17y ago
    Almost nobody builds Chromium without trivially linking in ffmpeg. In the real world, Chromium supports every damn codec and container format. All of them. Safari has identical support with Perian installed, and Opera does too with gst-ffmpeg. The official Chrome supports Theora, Vorbis, H.264, AAC, MP3, and WAV in all reasonable container formats. Mozilla only supports Theora and Vorbis in ogm containers, plus WAV/RIFF for <audio>.
    - vetinari 17y ago
      Good luck with redistributing that ffmmpeg-linked build of Chromium. Or do you think that end-users are going to compile their browser?
      - blasdel 17y ago

matthew-wegner 17y ago

Mozilla makes $80 million a year. That's not huge enough?

ZeroGravitas 17y ago
And has over 50% market share in some locations and about a third globally. And both Chrome and Opera are supporting Theora too which adds to the total for this particular fight.
- evgen 17y ago
  In this case the browser market share doesn't mean much. It is mindshare among the people providing the videos that matters. The way this particular battle is going to play out is that Mozilla will stick to its guns for a while and will continue to lose marketshare to Chrome, video providers will encode in HTML5/h.264 and Flash and eventually Firefox users on video sites will start seeing messages similar to the ones IE6 users see on some sites. The wildcard in this is Microsoft. If someone over there develops a clue they will jump on the h.264 bandwagon just to hose Mozilla -- IE8 will stop bleeding marketshare and this will provoke the video providers to move hard and fast to HTML5/h.264, forcing MozillaCorp to eat the costs of buying h.264 licenses and sticking a sharp stick in Adobe's eye as icing on the cake.
  - ZeroGravitas 17y ago
    The first video provider to offer HTML5 video happened nearly a year ago and was dailymotion, who happen to have a euro focus, hence greater Firefox (+ Opera) adoption in their userbase. So that's a data point to Mozilla in the video provider mindshare column. Wikipedia's worth a mention too.
FooBarWidget 17y ago
In revenue. About 50% of that go to operating costs. Developers need to eat too and they need to have a buffer for the near future. It's not wise to spend it all on giving unlimited H.264 licenses to the world.