7 ms·

Apple-Centric Observers Get the Facts Wrong: H.264 Still Ain’t Free

117 points by mgunes 16y ago

nanairo 16y ago
Oh dear... I understand the good intention, but I think the author has got a lot wrong. All these talk about Safari being the only roadblock... First: Internet Explorer is apparently fine because Microsoft supports it via separate coders... but that's exactly what Apple does too. Safari simply uses whatever is installed in the OS. Second: I'd be surprised if Safari, the forth browser online with something like 5% of the market could actually force anything. This is not IE6 that we are talking about!
- ZeroGravitas 16y ago
  It's Mobile Safari with its impressive mind/marketshare and total lack of user customizability that's the main battleground here. (Though luckily most of the iDevice installed base can only cope with baseline H.264.) Safari on Mac OS X will pick up WebM decode as soon as Perian auto-updates to it. Perian (basically ffmpeg for Quicktime) being one of the must-have installs on Mac OS X in order to play any video/audio codecs and containers outside the blessed subset that Apple chooses to support.
  - masklinn 16y ago
    > Perian (basically ffmpeg for Quicktime) being one of the must-have installs on Mac OS X in order to play any video/audio codecs and containers outside the blessed subset that Apple chooses to support. Or just not using QuickTime Player, which was basically mandatory in previous versions as QuickTime Player rather sucked balls (QuickTime Player X is pretty big improvement over the Player 7 so it's a viable option)
  - nanairo 16y ago
    What does Blackberry use then? Or what will Windows Phone 7 use? And WebOS? (I am asking seriously) I think in the mobile realm you can't blame a company for not supporting a format without hardware acceleration. Now, once the new chips arrive with WebM acceleration, and someone doesn't support it then sure, I agree that sucks.
    - ZeroGravitas 16y ago
      Apple's the only manufacturer that seems to make a selling point out of not shipping tools that users can shoot themselves in the foot with. A perfect example is mobile Flash, which is (or soon will be) a major selling point of basically all non-Apple mobile devices and runs lots of legacy VP6 video without hardware acceleration. And Adobe has committed to supporting VP8/WebM in future Flash versions.
      - nanairo 16y ago
        Ok. First I think the jury is still out if it will be a major selling point or not. Maybe you are right, maybe you are not. It seems a bit premature to use such adjectives. Second that is true about Apple. But that's their philosophy: I am sure if Firefox can have their own philosophy so can Apple. They like things that work, and work well (though sometimes they fail, as shown by the antenna problem). I don't see any reason why Apple wouldn't include WebM support once its hardware is capable of decoding it in hardware. But if your argument is that Apple should implement WebM despite it being much worse for mobile simply because otherwise Firefox can't join in, then I think you are asking a bit much. If it hardware acceleration weren't important for the battery then I would agree with you that Apple should implement WebM pronto (while still keeping AVC). As it is, I think there are not clear rights or wrongs, and it's up to each company to decide what they think we'll be best.
bombs 16y ago
OS X and Windows have licensed encoders, right? Is it possible for Firefox and others to use those on OS X and Windows and use a less-than-legal decoder on Linux as is, AFAIK, done for MP3s and DVDs?
- CaptainZapp 16y ago
  I don't think it's the technical obstacles that much, then the principle of the thing. And I can't say I disagree with it. The GIF fiasco illustrated very visibly what cans of worms can be opened when propriatary, patented technologies undermine open standards. I tend to agree with the author that it's more of a pr coup then anything else.
  - vetinari 16y ago
    Actually, there are also technical obstacles. The first time there is an exploit in system-provided video decoder (any decoder, not just H.264), you can be sure, who will get blamed for that - the browser, of course. So any browser maker wants to make sure, that they can update anything, that is being touched by web. In case of Apple and Microsoft, they both can update the system provided H.264 decoder. In case of Opera, Mozilla and Google, they can not. This is one of reasons, why all three browsers bundle their own decoders (the another one is multi-platform consistency).
    - rimantas 16y ago
      I am not sure if fear of being accused can be called a technical obstacle.
    - Hoff 16y ago
      Do you think so little of the vendors that you believe they won't want to fix an error in a widely-used security-critical OS component? Do you think so little of the ability of the Mozilla team to communicate on the details on a matter of platform security? When programming anything, you have to decide what components you're going to depend on, and what you're going to write and maintain yourself. On a codec, or C library, or whatever. And if there are issues with the foundation, then applications will have issues. Other applications will have issues, too. And if you're rolling your own code for common tasks, there will still be issues. You'll all of them, too. And you'll have a much larger project.
aloneinkyoto 16y ago
The whole codec discussion instigated by the Mozilla Foundation is so mind-numbingly odd that it makes me cringe. I fully understand the arguments that creating a completely free and open source web browser is an important and non-negotiable goal. Nevertheless the (non-existent) dilemma relies on the false assumptions that: 1. Deciding on a single codec that everyone should use for everything, forever (or until we get to have the same discussion again with HTML6) is the only way forward. Which is just stupid and ignorant. Different codecs are good for different use cases. There is no "one true codec"and there never will be. H.264 is a good all-around video codec for hi-def internet video, which is why it is popular on sites like YouTube, etc. 2. "Support" does not have to mean including code in the Firefox browser for decoding H.264 video. It simply means that the browser makes a best effort try to play the video. That's all that the end user really cares about, and that is easily accomplished by using the codec frameworks already present in most modern operating systems. Webkit uses Quicktime to play media on OS X and thus supports all formats that Quicktime supports, for example.
- CaptainZapp 16y ago
  "Deciding on a single codec that everyone should use for everything, forever (or until we get to have the same discussion again with HTML6) is the only way forward. Which is just stupid and ignorant." Mozilla never dictated that there should _be only one codec_. It's my understanding that they are happy to support any coded, which is not encumbered by patents. You're putting words into their mouth, which they never said in this form.
  - moxiemk1 16y ago
    However, because they have that stipulation, instead of having championing for the browser to use any and all OS codecs, they have declared that only Theora and WebM shoul be part of the standard.
    - ZeroGravitas 16y ago
      Actually, they just wanted Theora (now WebM) blessed as the one codec you knew would always be available. They were quite happy for "better" codecs to be provided in specific circumstances as long there was a baseline that would be guaranteed to be supported everywhere. It was Apple & Nokia that pushed for only one codec (namely H.264, which coincidentally couldn't be mandated as part of the standard and implemented everywhere because of patents).
gamble 16y ago
One day, the Mozilla folks are going to wake up and realize that all the opinion-makers abandoned them for Safari and Chrome.
ugh 16y ago
I don’t think it’s such a big drama. My prediction would be that h.264 will continue to dominate in the next years, either displayed using Flash with a HTML5 fallback (for mobile Webkit browsers) or the other way around, depending on how that whole Flash thing turns out. Heck, that’s not even much of a prediction, that’s pretty much reality right now. What Firefox does or doesn’t do doesn’t matter, the next changes will only come with the next generation of codecs.
Towle_ 16y ago
A meta-comment on the article: Apple-centric observers weren't the only ones to get the facts wrong, and phrasing like that title is only used to make a point. This implies that non-Apple-centric observers got the facts right. I don't know about you, but I'm not an "Apple-centric observer" and I had no idea H.264 wasn't free. And since I'm one of many, then the goal of this article was either to a) notify Apple-centric observers that H.264 isn't free and/or b) point out to everyone how biased Apple-centric oberservers are, how they just eat up everything Steve Jobs says, and high-five non-Apple-centric observers for being so coolheaded, rational, and informed. And since "Apple-centric observer" is clearly a codeword for "Apple fanboy," the implication here is essentially "smart people don't like Apple" or worse yet "if you like Apple, you're stupid." This is just flamebait disguised as news. Fanboys accusing fanboys of fanboyism. Move along, nothing to see here.

117 points by mgunes 16y ago

Oh dear... I understand the good intention, but I think the author has got a lot wrong. All these talk about Safari being the only roadblock... First: Internet Explorer is apparently fine because Microsoft supports it via separate coders... but that's exactly what Apple does too. Safari simply uses whatever is installed in the OS. Second: I'd be surprised if Safari, the forth browser online with something like 5% of the market could actually force anything. This is not IE6 that we are talking about!

ZeroGravitas 16y ago
It's Mobile Safari with its impressive mind/marketshare and total lack of user customizability that's the main battleground here. (Though luckily most of the iDevice installed base can only cope with baseline H.264.) Safari on Mac OS X will pick up WebM decode as soon as Perian auto-updates to it. Perian (basically ffmpeg for Quicktime) being one of the must-have installs on Mac OS X in order to play any video/audio codecs and containers outside the blessed subset that Apple chooses to support.
- masklinn 16y ago
  > Perian (basically ffmpeg for Quicktime) being one of the must-have installs on Mac OS X in order to play any video/audio codecs and containers outside the blessed subset that Apple chooses to support. Or just not using QuickTime Player, which was basically mandatory in previous versions as QuickTime Player rather sucked balls (QuickTime Player X is pretty big improvement over the Player 7 so it's a viable option)
- nanairo 16y ago
  What does Blackberry use then? Or what will Windows Phone 7 use? And WebOS? (I am asking seriously) I think in the mobile realm you can't blame a company for not supporting a format without hardware acceleration. Now, once the new chips arrive with WebM acceleration, and someone doesn't support it then sure, I agree that sucks.
  - ZeroGravitas 16y ago
    Apple's the only manufacturer that seems to make a selling point out of not shipping tools that users can shoot themselves in the foot with. A perfect example is mobile Flash, which is (or soon will be) a major selling point of basically all non-Apple mobile devices and runs lots of legacy VP6 video without hardware acceleration. And Adobe has committed to supporting VP8/WebM in future Flash versions.
    - nanairo 16y ago
      Ok. First I think the jury is still out if it will be a major selling point or not. Maybe you are right, maybe you are not. It seems a bit premature to use such adjectives. Second that is true about Apple. But that's their philosophy: I am sure if Firefox can have their own philosophy so can Apple. They like things that work, and work well (though sometimes they fail, as shown by the antenna problem). I don't see any reason why Apple wouldn't include WebM support once its hardware is capable of decoding it in hardware. But if your argument is that Apple should implement WebM despite it being much worse for mobile simply because otherwise Firefox can't join in, then I think you are asking a bit much. If it hardware acceleration weren't important for the battery then I would agree with you that Apple should implement WebM pronto (while still keeping AVC). As it is, I think there are not clear rights or wrongs, and it's up to each company to decide what they think we'll be best.

bombs 16y ago

OS X and Windows have licensed encoders, right? Is it possible for Firefox and others to use those on OS X and Windows and use a less-than-legal decoder on Linux as is, AFAIK, done for MP3s and DVDs?

CaptainZapp 16y ago
I don't think it's the technical obstacles that much, then the principle of the thing. And I can't say I disagree with it. The GIF fiasco illustrated very visibly what cans of worms can be opened when propriatary, patented technologies undermine open standards. I tend to agree with the author that it's more of a pr coup then anything else.
- vetinari 16y ago
  Actually, there are also technical obstacles. The first time there is an exploit in system-provided video decoder (any decoder, not just H.264), you can be sure, who will get blamed for that - the browser, of course. So any browser maker wants to make sure, that they can update anything, that is being touched by web. In case of Apple and Microsoft, they both can update the system provided H.264 decoder. In case of Opera, Mozilla and Google, they can not. This is one of reasons, why all three browsers bundle their own decoders (the another one is multi-platform consistency).
  - rimantas 16y ago
    I am not sure if fear of being accused can be called a technical obstacle.
  - Hoff 16y ago
    Do you think so little of the vendors that you believe they won't want to fix an error in a widely-used security-critical OS component? Do you think so little of the ability of the Mozilla team to communicate on the details on a matter of platform security? When programming anything, you have to decide what components you're going to depend on, and what you're going to write and maintain yourself. On a codec, or C library, or whatever. And if there are issues with the foundation, then applications will have issues. Other applications will have issues, too. And if you're rolling your own code for common tasks, there will still be issues. You'll all of them, too. And you'll have a much larger project.

aloneinkyoto 16y ago

The whole codec discussion instigated by the Mozilla Foundation is so mind-numbingly odd that it makes me cringe. I fully understand the arguments that creating a completely free and open source web browser is an important and non-negotiable goal. Nevertheless the (non-existent) dilemma relies on the false assumptions that: 1. Deciding on a single codec that everyone should use for everything, forever (or until we get to have the same discussion again with HTML6) is the only way forward. Which is just stupid and ignorant. Different codecs are good for different use cases. There is no "one true codec"and there never will be. H.264 is a good all-around video codec for hi-def internet video, which is why it is popular on sites like YouTube, etc. 2. "Support" does not have to mean including code in the Firefox browser for decoding H.264 video. It simply means that the browser makes a best effort try to play the video. That's all that the end user really cares about, and that is easily accomplished by using the codec frameworks already present in most modern operating systems. Webkit uses Quicktime to play media on OS X and thus supports all formats that Quicktime supports, for example.

CaptainZapp 16y ago
"Deciding on a single codec that everyone should use for everything, forever (or until we get to have the same discussion again with HTML6) is the only way forward. Which is just stupid and ignorant." Mozilla never dictated that there should _be only one codec_. It's my understanding that they are happy to support any coded, which is not encumbered by patents. You're putting words into their mouth, which they never said in this form.
- moxiemk1 16y ago
  However, because they have that stipulation, instead of having championing for the browser to use any and all OS codecs, they have declared that only Theora and WebM shoul be part of the standard.
  - ZeroGravitas 16y ago
    Actually, they just wanted Theora (now WebM) blessed as the one codec you knew would always be available. They were quite happy for "better" codecs to be provided in specific circumstances as long there was a baseline that would be guaranteed to be supported everywhere. It was Apple & Nokia that pushed for only one codec (namely H.264, which coincidentally couldn't be mandated as part of the standard and implemented everywhere because of patents).

gamble 16y ago

One day, the Mozilla folks are going to wake up and realize that all the opinion-makers abandoned them for Safari and Chrome.

ugh 16y ago

I don’t think it’s such a big drama. My prediction would be that h.264 will continue to dominate in the next years, either displayed using Flash with a HTML5 fallback (for mobile Webkit browsers) or the other way around, depending on how that whole Flash thing turns out. Heck, that’s not even much of a prediction, that’s pretty much reality right now. What Firefox does or doesn’t do doesn’t matter, the next changes will only come with the next generation of codecs.

Towle_ 16y ago

A meta-comment on the article: Apple-centric observers weren't the only ones to get the facts wrong, and phrasing like that title is only used to make a point. This implies that non-Apple-centric observers got the facts right. I don't know about you, but I'm not an "Apple-centric observer" and I had no idea H.264 wasn't free. And since I'm one of many, then the goal of this article was either to a) notify Apple-centric observers that H.264 isn't free and/or b) point out to everyone how biased Apple-centric oberservers are, how they just eat up everything Steve Jobs says, and high-five non-Apple-centric observers for being so coolheaded, rational, and informed. And since "Apple-centric observer" is clearly a codeword for "Apple fanboy," the implication here is essentially "smart people don't like Apple" or worse yet "if you like Apple, you're stupid." This is just flamebait disguised as news. Fanboys accusing fanboys of fanboyism. Move along, nothing to see here.