5 ms·

Those who seem to be opposed to Google's decision are often in the Apple camp (disclosure: I am in the Apple camp) but are also the same people who wish Flash t

by tomlin 16y ago

Those who seem to be opposed to Google's decision are often in the Apple camp (disclosure: I am in the Apple camp) but are also the same people who wish Flash to die because of it's closed/proprietary nature. So why can't we just envision ourselves embracing H.264 and picture what it'll be like in 10 years? Which camp will be trying to push it out the door because of licensing issues? There will be licensing and royalty issues. MPEG LA is a business at heart. Google is as well, certainly. But WebM could be ours instead of theirs, no? I think what people miss about WebM is that it isn't perfect - and no one is saying it is. It's not fully developed, but shouldn't we participate in fully developing WebM under an open source/royalty-free vision? Can't we all just get along?

pohl 16y ago
So why can't we just envision ourselves embracing H.264 and picture what it'll be like in 10 years? You mean imagine when we're 2 or 3 years from the last of the H.264 patents expiring? At that time I would expect it to only be ditched for something that offers substantially better quality/bitrate.
kenjackson 16y ago
There will be licensing and royalty issues. When a big company in Redmond says stuff like this, its called FUD. This is FUD, plain and simple. What technologies have patents, fees and/or licensing around them? H264, MP3, Flash, USB, Java, HDMI, CDMA, GSM, LTE, WiMax, Firewire, CD, DVD, BluRay, MP3, AMOLED, and many more. To argue that computing is going to collapse with the existence of all these is pure FUD. Its FUD when MS does it. It's FUD when Google or the Google camp does it. UPDATE: And I forgot a biggie, MPEG-2.
- tomlin 16y ago
  Not so fast. These licensed technologies you speak of are not embedded within web browser standards. It's a big difference. Flash, for one, is a plugin. It hitches a ride with the browser, it's not part of its standardized, internal workings. Google probably will benefit financially from this change and the rhetoric from Google's camp probably is FUD. No different than what Apple is doing with it's proprietary App Store process or it's closed source OS or how Apple's camp (again, I'm apart of this camp) manages to stick-shift through an uncomfortable conversation about open source beyond WebKit. The difference is that WebM might also help open source as well. Just because it benefits a corporation doesn't necessarily mean it's the devil.
  - pohl 16y ago
    Not so fast. These licensed technologies you speak of are not embedded within web browser standards. ...which is puts them on equal footing with H.264 and WebM. The HTML5 video standard specification does not specify a codec, so no codec can be said to be "embedded within web browser standards" either.
  - GHFigs 16y ago
    These licensed technologies you speak of are not embedded within web browser standards. Neither are video codecs.
    - rbanffy 16y ago
      And not embedding h.264 may prevent it from becoming a de-facto standard while pushing WebM, a fully open competitor (that's not perfect yet), may give it a chance of becoming, rightfully, part of a standard.
      - kenjackson 16y ago
        This was a spit in the face of Apple, and Jobs is the type to hold grudges. iOS devices won't use WebM. And no matter how you slice it, iOS devices will be popular in the formative years of HTML5. At best WebM splits <video> into a state where its really not much more useful than it is today. Or H264 just kills it anyways, and Chrome dies. In no case does WebM become the defacto standard.
        mitjak 16y ago
        So, because of your questionable personal knowledge of Jobs and the influence he holds over Apple, a video codec will fail? Last time I checked the world didn't run entirely on Apple hardware and software alone.
        rbanffy 16y ago
        Having a fragmented standard or no standard at all is usually better than having a very bad one. People can always encode to multiple file types if they want to serve the increasingly large audience that doesn't support h.264. And, BTW, Android phones just passed their iOS competitors, so, it doesn't matter how popular they will be, Android devices will be more popular. If Google decides they won't support h.264, it will be a serious hit.
- daleharvey 16y ago
  and none of those are required to produce or consume web based content. I dont need to pay anyone in order to write text on the web, I dont need to pay anyone in order to share images that I have created, I dont understand why people think its ok that we should have to pay to share the videos we create I know mpeg-la arent actually charging end users (yet), but that doesnt matter, someone has to pay
- recoiledsnake 16y ago
  >When a big company in Redmond says stuff like this, its called FUD. This is FUD, plain and simple. Even if they say the sky is blue? I don't even know why you're dragging MS into this. They've already stated that IE9 will pick up WebM codecs if they're installed on the machine and will use it play HTML5 video. They just don't want to ship it with the OS and step onto patent landmines which could cost them billions in lawyer and licensing costs. Google does not provide patent indemnity with WebM.
  - kenjackson 16y ago
    I brought MS into it, not to bash MS, but to point out how hypocritical these arguments often are. If MS says something with no substantiation, but merely an attempt to create fear, uncertainty, and doubt in the future, people are up in arms yelling FUD. But when Google does it it's about the greater good of humanity.
    - tomlin 16y ago
      You could say the same for any tribe, I think. I like Google but I doubt that they are making decisions for the greater good intentionally, or all the time. I do think that Google, like Apple, try to swing their business model towards a better design or better implementation. In a lot of those cases, the better implementation or design is open source or built for the greater good.
    - chc 16y ago
      It's not Google making up FUD — Google is noting an objection that's been around for a long time, and they're doing something about it. Mozilla has been saying the same thing for a long time. And I don't know how you even create FUD about something like this, where the uncertainty is based on traps that are known to exist, which most users are currently standing on but simply haven't been triggered yet. Is it a controversial claim that H.264 requires a patent license? Is it a controversial claim that MPEG-LA has only offered a limited-time indemnity, and that only for a subset of uses? This is all verifiable and documented.
      - 16y ago
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
danudey 16y ago
> But WebM could be ours instead of theirs, no? No. WebM could be Google's instead of MPEG-LA's. WebM is a Google project, Google-owned and Google-managed. Much like Android, it is open source so that anyone can see the code and make their own changes, but again, like Android, it is not a community effort. There's a chance that your changes, if useful, will make it back in, but in the end WebM, like Android, is controlled not by the community, but by a corporation. Essentially the comparison being made is between open source and open standards. The WebM implementation is open-source, but it is not an open standard. There are also open-source implementations of H.264 (e.g. x264), but H.264 is also an ISO/ITU standard which anyone can read and implement. WebM, however, is royalty-free, whereas H.264 is not. WebM has two of the three (open source, royalty free). H.264 also has two of the three (open source, open standard). If Google submits WebM to a standards body for approval, it will have all three. Until Google does submit it as a standard, it's still Google's format, not ours, they're just letting us use it for free. Down the road they can always change the format, the container, add new features (like some kind of inline advertisement), and anyone who's invested in implementing this format will have to scramble to add the new functionality or be left behind. Will they? Who knows, but the price you pay for implementing WebM right now is uncertainty. With H.264, you know exactly where you stand, and the licensing terms are specific, and corporations like that about it.

by tomlin 16y ago

pohl 16y ago

So why can't we just envision ourselves embracing H.264 and picture what it'll be like in 10 years? You mean imagine when we're 2 or 3 years from the last of the H.264 patents expiring? At that time I would expect it to only be ditched for something that offers substantially better quality/bitrate.

kenjackson 16y ago

There will be licensing and royalty issues. When a big company in Redmond says stuff like this, its called FUD. This is FUD, plain and simple. What technologies have patents, fees and/or licensing around them? H264, MP3, Flash, USB, Java, HDMI, CDMA, GSM, LTE, WiMax, Firewire, CD, DVD, BluRay, MP3, AMOLED, and many more. To argue that computing is going to collapse with the existence of all these is pure FUD. Its FUD when MS does it. It's FUD when Google or the Google camp does it. UPDATE: And I forgot a biggie, MPEG-2.

tomlin 16y ago
Not so fast. These licensed technologies you speak of are not embedded within web browser standards. It's a big difference. Flash, for one, is a plugin. It hitches a ride with the browser, it's not part of its standardized, internal workings. Google probably will benefit financially from this change and the rhetoric from Google's camp probably is FUD. No different than what Apple is doing with it's proprietary App Store process or it's closed source OS or how Apple's camp (again, I'm apart of this camp) manages to stick-shift through an uncomfortable conversation about open source beyond WebKit. The difference is that WebM might also help open source as well. Just because it benefits a corporation doesn't necessarily mean it's the devil.
- pohl 16y ago
  Not so fast. These licensed technologies you speak of are not embedded within web browser standards. ...which is puts them on equal footing with H.264 and WebM. The HTML5 video standard specification does not specify a codec, so no codec can be said to be "embedded within web browser standards" either.
- GHFigs 16y ago
  These licensed technologies you speak of are not embedded within web browser standards. Neither are video codecs.
  - rbanffy 16y ago
    And not embedding h.264 may prevent it from becoming a de-facto standard while pushing WebM, a fully open competitor (that's not perfect yet), may give it a chance of becoming, rightfully, part of a standard.
    - kenjackson 16y ago
      This was a spit in the face of Apple, and Jobs is the type to hold grudges. iOS devices won't use WebM. And no matter how you slice it, iOS devices will be popular in the formative years of HTML5. At best WebM splits <video> into a state where its really not much more useful than it is today. Or H264 just kills it anyways, and Chrome dies. In no case does WebM become the defacto standard.
      - mitjak 16y ago
        So, because of your questionable personal knowledge of Jobs and the influence he holds over Apple, a video codec will fail? Last time I checked the world didn't run entirely on Apple hardware and software alone.
      - rbanffy 16y ago
        Having a fragmented standard or no standard at all is usually better than having a very bad one. People can always encode to multiple file types if they want to serve the increasingly large audience that doesn't support h.264. And, BTW, Android phones just passed their iOS competitors, so, it doesn't matter how popular they will be, Android devices will be more popular. If Google decides they won't support h.264, it will be a serious hit.
daleharvey 16y ago
and none of those are required to produce or consume web based content. I dont need to pay anyone in order to write text on the web, I dont need to pay anyone in order to share images that I have created, I dont understand why people think its ok that we should have to pay to share the videos we create I know mpeg-la arent actually charging end users (yet), but that doesnt matter, someone has to pay
recoiledsnake 16y ago
>When a big company in Redmond says stuff like this, its called FUD. This is FUD, plain and simple. Even if they say the sky is blue? I don't even know why you're dragging MS into this. They've already stated that IE9 will pick up WebM codecs if they're installed on the machine and will use it play HTML5 video. They just don't want to ship it with the OS and step onto patent landmines which could cost them billions in lawyer and licensing costs. Google does not provide patent indemnity with WebM.
- kenjackson 16y ago
  I brought MS into it, not to bash MS, but to point out how hypocritical these arguments often are. If MS says something with no substantiation, but merely an attempt to create fear, uncertainty, and doubt in the future, people are up in arms yelling FUD. But when Google does it it's about the greater good of humanity.
  - tomlin 16y ago
    You could say the same for any tribe, I think. I like Google but I doubt that they are making decisions for the greater good intentionally, or all the time. I do think that Google, like Apple, try to swing their business model towards a better design or better implementation. In a lot of those cases, the better implementation or design is open source or built for the greater good.
  - chc 16y ago
    It's not Google making up FUD — Google is noting an objection that's been around for a long time, and they're doing something about it. Mozilla has been saying the same thing for a long time. And I don't know how you even create FUD about something like this, where the uncertainty is based on traps that are known to exist, which most users are currently standing on but simply haven't been triggered yet. Is it a controversial claim that H.264 requires a patent license? Is it a controversial claim that MPEG-LA has only offered a limited-time indemnity, and that only for a subset of uses? This is all verifiable and documented.
    - 16y ago
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

danudey 16y ago

> But WebM could be ours instead of theirs, no? No. WebM could be Google's instead of MPEG-LA's. WebM is a Google project, Google-owned and Google-managed. Much like Android, it is open source so that anyone can see the code and make their own changes, but again, like Android, it is not a community effort. There's a chance that your changes, if useful, will make it back in, but in the end WebM, like Android, is controlled not by the community, but by a corporation. Essentially the comparison being made is between open source and open standards. The WebM implementation is open-source, but it is not an open standard. There are also open-source implementations of H.264 (e.g. x264), but H.264 is also an ISO/ITU standard which anyone can read and implement. WebM, however, is royalty-free, whereas H.264 is not. WebM has two of the three (open source, royalty free). H.264 also has two of the three (open source, open standard). If Google submits WebM to a standards body for approval, it will have all three. Until Google does submit it as a standard, it's still Google's format, not ours, they're just letting us use it for free. Down the road they can always change the format, the container, add new features (like some kind of inline advertisement), and anyone who's invested in implementing this format will have to scramble to add the new functionality or be left behind. Will they? Who knows, but the price you pay for implementing WebM right now is uncertainty. With H.264, you know exactly where you stand, and the licensing terms are specific, and corporations like that about it.