4 ms·

I'm looking forward to Google remaining consistent with their words and removing Flash from Chrome in the near future. You know, for the good of the users.

samlevine 16y ago
I'm sure they'll do that after Adobe sends an invoice to the Gnash project.
mbrubeck 16y ago
Speaking as someone who works for a browser vendor: There's a big difference between dropping support for entrenched technologies, and choosing which emerging technologies to support. Certain formats and practices are already part of the web, for better or worse, and it's not fully within the browser vendors' power to change that. If any browser dropped Flash support, it would break thousands of popular web sites, and users would simply switch browsers. What is within our power is to decide which emerging standards to support. Dropping H.264 in <video> at this point won't cause users to flee the browser. And it does give us some chance of avoiding another patent-encumbered format becoming a de-facto standard on the web. We don't control existing sites, but we do control our own actions which influence new sites. We can't alter the past, but we can change the future.
- pohl 16y ago
  While H.264 may not be entrenched, it certainly is established and far, far from being emerging.
  - mbrubeck 16y ago
    That's true, which is why I referred specifically to H.264 in the <video> element (which is the only case affected by this change). There are mature implementations, but as a part of the web platform it is still in very early stages. While H.264 <video> is already deployed widely thanks to iOS, it's generally with a fallback for the majority of users whose browsers don't support it. Removing it from Chrome will not break the web for users, in the way it would if they removed Flash or GIF or JavaScript semicolon insertion, or any other of the many web technologies we'd like to retroactively wish away.
ubernostrum 16y ago
Well, Mozilla's already gone down the road of hypocrisy ("H264 bad! Plugins insecure! Keep shipping Flash!"), so why not Google, too?
- CaptainZapp 16y ago
  Well, Mozilla's already gone down the road of hypocrisy ("H264 bad! Plugins insecure! Keep shipping Flash!") Sigh! When did the Mozilla ever claim that they do not ship H.264 because it's insecure? They stated, as far as I recall, that they do not wish to support a patent crippled technology in their browser. A decision a lot of the more technically inclined users, who remember the GIF fiasko fully support. In addition: The Mozilla project does not ship Flash. You have to download it from Adobe's website and install it yourself. I'm calling bullshit, badly disguised as a strawman.
  - ubernostrum 16y ago
    Sigh! When did the Mozilla ever claim that they do not ship H.264 because it's insecure? Mike Shaver and Robert O'Callahan both -- during the early attempt to frantically spin this as more than just an ideological PR stunt -- pointed to security as a reason why they didn't feel comfortable delegating to other software. See the following posts: http://shaver.off.net/diary/2010/01/23/html5-video-and-codecs/ http://shaver.off.net/diary/2010/01/23/html5-video-and-codec... http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2010/01/video_freedom_a.html http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2010/01/video_fr... http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2009/06/directshow_and.html http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2009/06/directsh... Of course, they did eventually come clean and admit this was just a naked ideological PR stunt. O'Callahan's quote about the fact that delegating to OS codecs would mean giving up Mozilla's control -- sorry, "leverage" -- over what users can do with their own computers is particularly telling, especially in a debate that's ostensibly about "freedom". I'm calling bullshit, badly disguised as a strawman. I'm calling "do your homework, lest you look like a badly-informed fanboy".
    - CaptainZapp 16y ago
      Well, I still call bullshit. Especially if this is the best you can come up with. Let's see: http://shaver.off.net/diary/2010/01/23/html5-video-and-codecs/ http://shaver.off.net/diary/2010/01/23/html5-video-and-codec... We have exactly two references to "security" : And I want that not only altruistically, but also because I want the crazy awesome video (animation, peer-to-peer, *security*, etc.) ideas that will come from having more people, with more perspectives, fully participating in the internet. and (about 60% of our users are on Windows XP, which provides no H.264 codec), *to security* (exposure of arbitrary codecs to hostile content), and to user experience None of them even slightly imply that the Mozilla team thinks H.264 is insecure. http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2010/01/video_freedom_a.html http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2010/01/video_fr... This is an FAQ or rant if you will, which goes on and on about why Mozilla does not want to implement H.264. Oh yes, not one single word about security This one: http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2009/06/directshow_and.html http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2009/06/directsh... indeed discusses security. It is however not geared towards H.264, but towards Microsoft's DirectShow. Using this article as a reference regarding Mozilla's stand on security on H.264 is at best a stretch and at worst intellectually dishonest. I'm calling "do your homework, lest you look like a badly-informed fanboy". I never thought of myself as a fanboy, but be my guest to dive into ad-hominem, when you're out of arguments. In addition. I'm rather an uninformed fanboy then an intellectually dishonest fanboy, which surprises me looking at your Kharma.

samlevine 16y ago

I'm sure they'll do that after Adobe sends an invoice to the Gnash project.

mbrubeck 16y ago

Speaking as someone who works for a browser vendor: There's a big difference between dropping support for entrenched technologies, and choosing which emerging technologies to support. Certain formats and practices are already part of the web, for better or worse, and it's not fully within the browser vendors' power to change that. If any browser dropped Flash support, it would break thousands of popular web sites, and users would simply switch browsers. What is within our power is to decide which emerging standards to support. Dropping H.264 in <video> at this point won't cause users to flee the browser. And it does give us some chance of avoiding another patent-encumbered format becoming a de-facto standard on the web. We don't control existing sites, but we do control our own actions which influence new sites. We can't alter the past, but we can change the future.

pohl 16y ago
While H.264 may not be entrenched, it certainly is established and far, far from being emerging.
- mbrubeck 16y ago
  That's true, which is why I referred specifically to H.264 in the <video> element (which is the only case affected by this change). There are mature implementations, but as a part of the web platform it is still in very early stages. While H.264 <video> is already deployed widely thanks to iOS, it's generally with a fallback for the majority of users whose browsers don't support it. Removing it from Chrome will not break the web for users, in the way it would if they removed Flash or GIF or JavaScript semicolon insertion, or any other of the many web technologies we'd like to retroactively wish away.

ubernostrum 16y ago

Well, Mozilla's already gone down the road of hypocrisy ("H264 bad! Plugins insecure! Keep shipping Flash!"), so why not Google, too?

CaptainZapp 16y ago
Well, Mozilla's already gone down the road of hypocrisy ("H264 bad! Plugins insecure! Keep shipping Flash!") Sigh! When did the Mozilla ever claim that they do not ship H.264 because it's insecure? They stated, as far as I recall, that they do not wish to support a patent crippled technology in their browser. A decision a lot of the more technically inclined users, who remember the GIF fiasko fully support. In addition: The Mozilla project does not ship Flash. You have to download it from Adobe's website and install it yourself. I'm calling bullshit, badly disguised as a strawman.
- ubernostrum 16y ago
  Sigh! When did the Mozilla ever claim that they do not ship H.264 because it's insecure? Mike Shaver and Robert O'Callahan both -- during the early attempt to frantically spin this as more than just an ideological PR stunt -- pointed to security as a reason why they didn't feel comfortable delegating to other software. See the following posts: http://shaver.off.net/diary/2010/01/23/html5-video-and-codecs/ http://shaver.off.net/diary/2010/01/23/html5-video-and-codec... http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2010/01/video_freedom_a.html http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2010/01/video_fr... http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2009/06/directshow_and.html http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2009/06/directsh... Of course, they did eventually come clean and admit this was just a naked ideological PR stunt. O'Callahan's quote about the fact that delegating to OS codecs would mean giving up Mozilla's control -- sorry, "leverage" -- over what users can do with their own computers is particularly telling, especially in a debate that's ostensibly about "freedom". I'm calling bullshit, badly disguised as a strawman. I'm calling "do your homework, lest you look like a badly-informed fanboy".
  - CaptainZapp 16y ago
    Well, I still call bullshit. Especially if this is the best you can come up with. Let's see: http://shaver.off.net/diary/2010/01/23/html5-video-and-codecs/ http://shaver.off.net/diary/2010/01/23/html5-video-and-codec... We have exactly two references to "security" : And I want that not only altruistically, but also because I want the crazy awesome video (animation, peer-to-peer, *security*, etc.) ideas that will come from having more people, with more perspectives, fully participating in the internet. and (about 60% of our users are on Windows XP, which provides no H.264 codec), *to security* (exposure of arbitrary codecs to hostile content), and to user experience None of them even slightly imply that the Mozilla team thinks H.264 is insecure. http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2010/01/video_freedom_a.html http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2010/01/video_fr... This is an FAQ or rant if you will, which goes on and on about why Mozilla does not want to implement H.264. Oh yes, not one single word about security This one: http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2009/06/directshow_and.html http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2009/06/directsh... indeed discusses security. It is however not geared towards H.264, but towards Microsoft's DirectShow. Using this article as a reference regarding Mozilla's stand on security on H.264 is at best a stretch and at worst intellectually dishonest. I'm calling "do your homework, lest you look like a badly-informed fanboy". I never thought of myself as a fanboy, but be my guest to dive into ad-hominem, when you're out of arguments. In addition. I'm rather an uninformed fanboy then an intellectually dishonest fanboy, which surprises me looking at your Kharma.