7 ms·

Much of the debate is centered around the quasi-ubiquity of h264 and accepting the royalties involved and it's proprietary nature as a compromise that we are w

by yanw 16y ago

Much of the debate is centered around the quasi-ubiquity of h264 and accepting the royalties involved and it's proprietary nature as a compromise that we are willing to make, which is very short sighted and dangerous. Also the typical patent FUD in this article suggesting that WebM might violate patents without naming them is somewhat indicative of the author's motives. I keep hearing the Flash analogy, which is nonsense, flash doesn't just do video playback, the technology is ubiquitously used in a variety of ways and is not comparable to a video codec, and does not have any of the patent licencing issues h264 has. This move is a step forward towards openness as it will force publishers and users to consider the non-proprietary alternative.

recoiledsnake 16y ago
>Also the typical patent FUD in this article suggesting that WebM might violate patents without naming them is somewhat indicative of the author's motives. Stating that Webm might turn into a patent minefield is FUD now? What happened to journalistic freedom and rational discourse?
- bryanlarsen 16y ago
  The two biggest possibilities are: 1) WebM infringes on h264 patents AND h264 infringes on VP3 patents. Remember VP3 is the predecessor to WebM and came out before h264. or 2) neither infringes on the patents. So the 3rd unlikely possibility is FUD, yes.
- tomlin 16y ago
  The author has and had the freedom to publish. No one stopped him from publishing the article. The HN crowd don't really respect a conjecture without evidence. That's kinda why I come here.
- sorbus 16y ago
  If I say "with additional research, it may be discovered that there's a correlation between eating corn and various degenerative diseases, and therefor you should not eat corn" with no evidence to support that assertion, it is FUD. Similarly, if I say "with additional research, it may be discovered that WebM infringes on patents, and therefor you should not use it" with no evidence to support that assertion, it is FUD. If a claim is unsupported but used as a criticism of something - especially a reason not to use a product - then it is FUD.
GHFigs 16y ago
The problematic word here is force. I don't enjoy being forced to "consider" using something by being prevented from using anything else, and when the people doing the forcing claim it's for "freedom" and "openness" I just scratch my head. I mean, isn't it strange that browsers that only support certain vendor-chosen codecs are described as more open than the browsers that allow the user to install any codec they like?
- spiffworks 16y ago
  Google is putting its foot down to ensure that web video isn't hijacked by a codec that is owned by a notorious organisation, and they're doing it at great cost to themselves- in terms of the blowback from this, and the amount of money they spent on On2, and the patent litigation that is almost certainly coming if webm gains any significant adoption. Mozilla and Google are fighting for your and my right to produce fully compliant browsers without having to pay somebody else. They're fighting for your right to fork.
  - krschultz 16y ago
    Is it really at a great cost to themselves? How do we know that total cost of license fees per copy of Chrome plus license fees per copy of Android is less than the cost of buying On2?
    - spiffworks 16y ago
      Well, H.264 licenses top out at 6 million, I think. On2 was acquired for 133 million(check Wikipedia). And they've only removed H.264 from Chrome, it would be disastrous for them to do the same with Android. So even if they were to license H.264 for its patent lifetime, they've lost more money than they've saved.
  - GHFigs 16y ago
    Google is putting its foot down to ensure that web video isn't hijacked by [h.264] What on earth do you mean by "hijacked"? Web video has been dominated by h.264 since it was added to Flash, and Google itself is among the most prominent pushers. It didn't sneak in through the back door, it reached it's current status the same way anything else on the web has: by being useful. Mozilla and Google are fighting for your and my right to produce fully compliant browsers without having to pay somebody else. This is what gets me scratching my head, because it's Mozilla and Google who are the ones trying to make browsers, not me. Mozilla and Google are acting in their own interests (which is fine, don't get me wrong) but they keep telling me that it's for my sake even though, if asked, I would tell them not to do what they're doing. It feels more like an ideological bludgeoning than a favor. Also, I take issue with your saying "fully compliant". Codec support hasn't been a standards compliance issue since Ogg was (rightfully) pulled from the spec. If anything, the fact that the spec is codec-agnostic suggests that the most "spiritually" compliant position would be for the implementation to be, as well. But that's not what we get from Mozilla or Google. For that kind of openness we have to turn to...Microsoft and Apple? Weird.
anonymous246 16y ago
And WebM is not proprietary how? The article did a brilliant job of listing the nuances of "open".

by yanw 16y ago

recoiledsnake 16y ago

>Also the typical patent FUD in this article suggesting that WebM might violate patents without naming them is somewhat indicative of the author's motives. Stating that Webm might turn into a patent minefield is FUD now? What happened to journalistic freedom and rational discourse?

bryanlarsen 16y ago
The two biggest possibilities are: 1) WebM infringes on h264 patents AND h264 infringes on VP3 patents. Remember VP3 is the predecessor to WebM and came out before h264. or 2) neither infringes on the patents. So the 3rd unlikely possibility is FUD, yes.
tomlin 16y ago
The author has and had the freedom to publish. No one stopped him from publishing the article. The HN crowd don't really respect a conjecture without evidence. That's kinda why I come here.
sorbus 16y ago
If I say "with additional research, it may be discovered that there's a correlation between eating corn and various degenerative diseases, and therefor you should not eat corn" with no evidence to support that assertion, it is FUD. Similarly, if I say "with additional research, it may be discovered that WebM infringes on patents, and therefor you should not use it" with no evidence to support that assertion, it is FUD. If a claim is unsupported but used as a criticism of something - especially a reason not to use a product - then it is FUD.

GHFigs 16y ago

The problematic word here is force. I don't enjoy being forced to "consider" using something by being prevented from using anything else, and when the people doing the forcing claim it's for "freedom" and "openness" I just scratch my head. I mean, isn't it strange that browsers that only support certain vendor-chosen codecs are described as more open than the browsers that allow the user to install any codec they like?

spiffworks 16y ago
Google is putting its foot down to ensure that web video isn't hijacked by a codec that is owned by a notorious organisation, and they're doing it at great cost to themselves- in terms of the blowback from this, and the amount of money they spent on On2, and the patent litigation that is almost certainly coming if webm gains any significant adoption. Mozilla and Google are fighting for your and my right to produce fully compliant browsers without having to pay somebody else. They're fighting for your right to fork.
- krschultz 16y ago
  Is it really at a great cost to themselves? How do we know that total cost of license fees per copy of Chrome plus license fees per copy of Android is less than the cost of buying On2?
  - spiffworks 16y ago
    Well, H.264 licenses top out at 6 million, I think. On2 was acquired for 133 million(check Wikipedia). And they've only removed H.264 from Chrome, it would be disastrous for them to do the same with Android. So even if they were to license H.264 for its patent lifetime, they've lost more money than they've saved.
- GHFigs 16y ago
  Google is putting its foot down to ensure that web video isn't hijacked by [h.264] What on earth do you mean by "hijacked"? Web video has been dominated by h.264 since it was added to Flash, and Google itself is among the most prominent pushers. It didn't sneak in through the back door, it reached it's current status the same way anything else on the web has: by being useful. Mozilla and Google are fighting for your and my right to produce fully compliant browsers without having to pay somebody else. This is what gets me scratching my head, because it's Mozilla and Google who are the ones trying to make browsers, not me. Mozilla and Google are acting in their own interests (which is fine, don't get me wrong) but they keep telling me that it's for my sake even though, if asked, I would tell them not to do what they're doing. It feels more like an ideological bludgeoning than a favor. Also, I take issue with your saying "fully compliant". Codec support hasn't been a standards compliance issue since Ogg was (rightfully) pulled from the spec. If anything, the fact that the spec is codec-agnostic suggests that the most "spiritually" compliant position would be for the implementation to be, as well. But that's not what we get from Mozilla or Google. For that kind of openness we have to turn to...Microsoft and Apple? Weird.

anonymous246 16y ago

And WebM is not proprietary how? The article did a brilliant job of listing the nuances of "open".