11 ms·

No double standards: supporting Google's push for WebM

202 points by tjr 16y ago

spiffworks 16y ago
"free standards" I'm glad somebody finally figured out how to accurately describe webm. All this hand-waving talk of 'openness' and 'open standards' was debate poison.
- 9oliYQjP 16y ago
  Except it's not "free" in the Free software sense. Google specifically addresses why they didn't use a GPL license but rather BSD. They want to promote WebM in proprietary, closed, products. http://www.webmproject.org/about/faq/ http://www.webmproject.org/about/faq/ "One of the goals of having this code licensed as liberally as possible is to encourage adoption by as many users as possible. This includes both proprietary and free software. Using the GPL license would not be a good match for this goal." The WebM issue is far from black and white. I still haven't figured out which side I agree with more. What I do know is that a lot of people are arguing tactics. This is a battle between corporations and everybody should be taking 100 steps back to try to figure out the strategies at work on both sides. Edit: What I'm alluding to in my last point is a lot like Paul Graham's point in this essay from a while back: http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html
  - spiffworks 16y ago
    No, clearly it's not Free as in FSF, but 'free as in beer' is the only thing that separates it from H.264, it's definitely the most accurate description I've seen yet.
    - hakl 16y ago
      It's compliant with FSF's definition of free software (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html) and Debian's guidelines (http://www.debian.org/social_contract http://www.debian.org/social_contract). Stallman himself agreed that it was a good thing for Xiph to relicense their libraries from the LGPL to a permissive free software license (http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/icecast-dev/2001-February/000005.html http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/icecast-dev/2001-February/00...): In response to the change of license, Richard Stallman of the Free Software Foundation says, "I agree. It is wise to make some of the Ogg Vorbis code available for use in proprietary software, so that commercial companies doing proprietary software will use it, and help Vorbis succeed in competition with other formats that would be restricted against our use."
      - spiffworks 16y ago
        Well, we're talking about two things, really- the webm reference implementation and the license under which the patents covering the spec are licensed. I guess the reference implementation is free as in freedom, and the spec is free as in beer to re-implement. This is why 'free standard' is such a pithy and accurate description.
  - nicholasjbs 16y ago
    BSD-licensed software is free software according to the FSF (see: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleL...), it's just not copyleft.
pacifika 16y ago
This article would be correct if Google dropped flash together with H.264. The practical result of playing H.264 to Chrome users via Flash instead of through a native open source implementation (Chromium) is surely a net negative for free standards supporters? After all it's "proprietary, nonstandard software."
- bryanlarsen 16y ago
  I don't understand this position. Dropping H.264 is aligned with the FSF's goals, so of course they should support it. To me, Google's move is an indication that Google will eventually drop and/or downgrade Flash support. You encourage institutions to do the right thing by applauding when they do the right thing. Not by saying "you suck because you didn't take it far enough". You say "Good move doing X. And when you do Y you'll be doubly awesome."
  - rimantas 16y ago
    I fail to see how this move is good for end users.
    - drdaeman 16y ago
      By any chance, did you read the actual article?
      - rimantas 16y ago
        Yes I did. Did you?
        drdaeman 16y ago
        Of course. I'll even quote the article: > H.264 is a patent-encumbered codec; the MPEG LA organization requires developers who implement it to agree to a patent license. This license is fundamentally incompatible with software freedom. It requires developers to restrict how their software can be used, and to collect royalties in many situations. While the wording is not perfect, this is actually about end user freedoms and convenience. There's the same situation is with parts of ffmpeg/libavformat or libmad - you just can't ship and use them completely legally. This is why "restricted formats" notion appeared, and why Ubuntu started shipping Fluendo's non-free encoder binary (http://www.fluendo.com/shop/product/fluendo-mp3-decoder/ http://www.fluendo.com/shop/product/fluendo-mp3-decoder/, previous-to-last paragraph). It was always a problem (albeit, nowadays, minor one) to use proprietary codecs on GNU/Linux systems. Problem not on developers' side, but the for the actual end users. Killing H.264, thus actively encouraging WebM support helps WebM to win the formats battle. In a short term, both end users and developers will experience compatibility problems, but in the end - if WebM will win - both end users and developers will benefit. And please remember that we have Firefox, which - due to various FLOSS reasons - just won't support H.264 anyway.
cletus 16y ago
A few points: > We applaud Google for this change; it's a positive step for free software Except that it further entrenches Flash in the short to medium term, possibly longer. > Most of it is delivered with Flash, which is proprietary, nonstandard software. Exactly. H.264 isn't going away anytime soon so having a Web browser without Flash gets that much harder. With no native support for H.264 in Firefox or (soon) Chrome, bizarrely the most Flash-unencumbered browsers are Safari and Internet Explorer. Consider that for a moment: Internet Explorer. > Free software alternatives like GNU Gnash are available, but the user experience isn't always as seamless as it ought to be. This is a key point but not in the way the author intended and it's worth parsing this statement. The FSF is driven by philosophy here but most users aren't. If you want to attract a plurality of users a necessary precondition is to have the experience be as good if not better than what you're contesting. There is a cost to switching: finding new tools, learning a new process and so on. Users need a reason to switch and ephemeral arguments about "openness" of video on the Web just don't cut it for the majority, at least not while such a choice comes with a subpar experience. > In order to make sure the Web stays free for everyone, we need a free codec to prevail as the de facto standard with HTML5. Like most future specters I believe this one is overblown too. Everyone points to the GIF fiasco. The net result? PNG was born. If the screws are ever put to us on H.264, you'll see exactly the same thing, only quicker. Computing power being what it is today, the effort of re-encoding every video that exists on the Web is actually not that hard of a problem, and is certainly in the realm of what Google can do today, let alone 5-10 years from now. > WebM can be that codec: Google provides a patent license with the standard that is compatible with free software licenses But it should be noted, there is no indemnity against H.264 patent infringement. I'm not saying WebM violates H.264 patents. The reverse may even be true (or both). But the point is that it is a risk. > We can only be free if we reject data formats that are restricted by patents. The elephant in the room here is that the fundamental problem is software patents. They need to be completely abolished. > But the issue's not settled yet. No but it's a bit like iPad vs the rest of the tablets. The issue isn't settled yet, but the iPad has a whopping lead and the smart money is on it for some time to come. H.264, like it or not, is more mature and has more hardware and software support than WebM, which is far less mature.
- jasonlotito 16y ago
xutopia 16y ago
I always saw this as a problem with the FSF. They are urging web site operators to use WebM right away when there isn't even support for them. They simply sound so naive when they say "Today, we're also urging Web site operators to distribute videos in the WebM format, and abandon H.264". What they should be saying is "Prepare your web sites to transition to WebM".
- drdaeman 16y ago
  "Prepare" is way too lax. Many will treat it like stick-it note "oh, I have to make sure someday, shall the transition come, my code won't require major rewrites". Like "preparation" for IPv6 support frequently ends with adding more bits to DB fields and adding several stub functions. Unless you actually get your hands dirty and start doing something, not just preparing, there won't be any significant results. Sure, FSF is quite radical with "and abandon H.264" part, but "distribute videos in the WebM format" part is perfectly fine.
- zacharypinter 16y ago
  Let's not quibble over minor semantics.
- Someone 16y ago
  I disagree. You cannot have a revolution without at least some pain.
luigi 16y ago
Ehh, all of a sudden the pro-WebM side got really lame now that the FSF joined the party.
commandar 16y ago
I was discussing this with some people yesterday. I find it incredibly frustrating that the Grubers of the world have spent months attacking Google for supporting the evil, closed Flash, but then manage to spin Google dropping a closed format in favor of an open one as evil and using it as a roundabout way of continuing to hate on Flash. The fact of the matter is that Flash is an entrenched, defacto standard and isn't going away any time soon. HTML5 isn't anywhere close to completely replacing Flash even if it were to disappear in a puff of logic right this moment. HTML5 <video> is in its infancy, and isn't being perpetuated by sheer momentum like Flash. Further, H.264 was a complete non-starter for Mozilla, and Firefox holds nearly 20% of the market. Using H.264 for HTML5 <video> would have guaranteed market segmentation and hurt the chances of a truly open future. This argument about dropping H.264 propagating Flash in the short term is just insanity to me. Flash is already here for the short term. We need to focus on our long-term options for moving to something more open, and the whining about this decision strikes me as totally myopic at best and blind fanboyism at worst.
- jasonlotito 16y ago
  Google supports Adobe Flash, and has dropped support for Google's implementation of H.264 inside Chrome. One is a plugin. One was not. I agree with your comment, and I find the Flash/H.264/Chrome argument to be childish at best.
  - ZeroGravitas 16y ago
    If an Apple or Microsoft blogger finds themselves taking a more hardline stance than the FSF, it's easy to conclude that they're trolling/astroturfing. However if we're talking "childish", then the "Plugins! I thought the point of HTML5 was to avoid plugins" argument wins by a mile. People, including Google, have been pushing HTML5 via various plugins, fallbacks and shims for a good while (e.g. Chrome Frame, Google Gears, Flash Vorbis decode, Java Theora decode etc.)
    - jasonlotito 16y ago
      > However if we're talking "childish", then the "Plugins! I thought the point of HTML5 was to avoid plugins" argument wins by a mile. Which doesn't challenge anything I said. In fact, you can remove plugins from you browser, including Flash, right now.
cmister 16y ago
Or in summary: if you support a free Web, you support WebM and FSF's call for killing H.264. If you don't care, then H.264 seems just fine.
- tzs 16y ago
  So, to watch a video using H.264, you use a patent encumbered codec, running on a patent encumbered CPU, accelerated by a patent encumbered GPU. The video came over patent encumbered network hardware, or from patent encumbered local storage, over patent encumbered interfaces and patent encumbered connectors. If we switch to WebM, we have one less "patent encumbered" in there (maybe). I'm not impressed with the "free Web" argument.
bsergean 16y ago
Go Google and the FSF. Closed standard like Gif must die or be opened.
bonaldi 16y ago
The content is all in h.264 because it works in 99.9999% of places. You can make every browser support webM tomorrow and that still wouldn't be a compelling reason for publishers to add WebM in favour of the status quo. The only thing that could achieve such a thing would be a device with iOS levels of popularity that a) doesn't support h.264 b) doesn't support Flash. Who is going to make such a device? A: Nobody, because it won't support any web video at all apart from maybe YouTube. You can grouse about open principles all you want, but the big video producers don't care; they will not be a factor. Audience demand is the only thing that matters, and they won't demand WebM when h.264 is already working "fine".
- ijuhyftgreduy 16y ago
  Google switches youtube to WebM and people will want WebM in their browser, they may even be prepared to switch to chrome if it's the only thing that can view WebM easily. When Google decides to take the internet TV business away from people like Netflix - remember they are an advertising company - they want their own codec to avoid any arguments.
  - bonaldi 16y ago
    Yes, YouTube would have to switch to WebM -- ie no support for serving any other codec -- for that to be true. Which is effectively turning off YouTube for every browser and device on the web today. Are they going to do that? No chance. Some day, maybe, but they're not going to lead the way. And while YouTube is still additionally serving h.264, there's still no pressure for everybody else to change.
    - vetinari 16y ago
      They may also turn 480p and higher to be webm only; effectively making h.264 low quality, intended only for "legacy mobile devices".
    - fczuardi 16y ago
      There is a strategy in the middle however for google/youtube to make people want to migrate to browsers and devices that supports webm/vp8: all they have to do is to continue serving both webm and h264 versions, but make the h264 version a worst experience. For example: make all h264 encoded clips on youtube become grayscale while mantainig the vp8 ones high quality and in color. People would not be prevented from watching youtube on iDevices, but watching it on those devices would be like watching an old black and white tv :) And when people start flooding apple feedback and support channels with "why my youtube lost its colors on my ipad?" questions, then maybe Apple can add vp8 support on iOS.
weixiyen 16y ago
If Firefox wasn't supporting h.264, it was kind of pointless for Chrome to support it as well. As a developer, I have to have to resort to flash for h.264 anyways as Firefox has a much bigger market share than Chrome.
marckremers 16y ago
But isn't it too late? http://techcrunch.com/2010/05/01/h-264-66-percent-web-video/ http://techcrunch.com/2010/05/01/h-264-66-percent-web-video/ This is from May last year, I bet it's even higher now. Say by some miracle that webm takes over, even though it's free, it's a Google run project, and we now that Apple chooses stability over availability (i.e. their rejection of Flash) From my experience building a HTML5 video playback portfolio for a client, playing high quality webm/ogg is just not doable yet, even via Amazons CDN. And what i don't get, on a very basic level, are these companies that own these file formats really ever going to cash in on all those files out there? I mean GIF, JPG, PNG are all patented formats, and they are everywhere. Why doesn't Google announce for example that they will also stop supporting JPG/PNG/GI in favor of their open source WebP format? If they were really drawing bold lines they should be honest about it.
- jarek 16y ago
  PNG is not a patented format. In fact, the patent wars surrounding GIF were a major, perhaps the overriding motivation for development of PNG.
tzs 16y ago
H.264 is the standard for video compression. Period. It is what almost all professional hardware and software supports. It's how video is distributed on disc, via cable, via satellite, and via digital broadcast. It's what consumer hardware supports. Someday it will be replaced, but it will take a technically better standard. WebM is not technically better. Take a time machine and send WebM back about 10 years, and it has a shot. Without a time machine, it is too late. The problem Google and the FSF face is that very few really care about having everything be free in the FSF's sense of free. Heck, even among Linux users, who you'd expect would be the most receptive of wanting everything to be free, very few run the truly free distributions, with no non-free modules or drivers. The vast majority are not even on Linux. They are on Windows and Mac, and so have no qualms about using non-free stuff. To convince people they need to switch to something that is technically inferior, they need to be shown a problem that actually affects them. H.264 being subject to patent licensing in those countries that recognize software or codec patents is not a problem that can be shown to affect most web users or most web video producers, at least in a way they care about. The royalty free license for distributing free video on the web, and the high thresholds before license fees kick in for video producers, ensure that the vast majority of us never do anything that requires coughing up any money, and that takes the problem off most people's radar.
- varjag 16y ago
  A huge part of the business and consumer world now takes benefit from fruits of free software movement. Your Android smartphone, your $49 Taiwanese wifi router, that Heroku service in the cloud you use - all of them would not exist as they are otherwise. So like it or not, those freedom freaks are entitled to have a say to how things should work. They are too big part of an ecosystem to be ignored.

202 points by tjr 16y ago

"free standards" I'm glad somebody finally figured out how to accurately describe webm. All this hand-waving talk of 'openness' and 'open standards' was debate poison.

9oliYQjP 16y ago
Except it's not "free" in the Free software sense. Google specifically addresses why they didn't use a GPL license but rather BSD. They want to promote WebM in proprietary, closed, products. http://www.webmproject.org/about/faq/ http://www.webmproject.org/about/faq/ "One of the goals of having this code licensed as liberally as possible is to encourage adoption by as many users as possible. This includes both proprietary and free software. Using the GPL license would not be a good match for this goal." The WebM issue is far from black and white. I still haven't figured out which side I agree with more. What I do know is that a lot of people are arguing tactics. This is a battle between corporations and everybody should be taking 100 steps back to try to figure out the strategies at work on both sides. Edit: What I'm alluding to in my last point is a lot like Paul Graham's point in this essay from a while back: http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html
- spiffworks 16y ago
  No, clearly it's not Free as in FSF, but 'free as in beer' is the only thing that separates it from H.264, it's definitely the most accurate description I've seen yet.
  - hakl 16y ago
    It's compliant with FSF's definition of free software (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html) and Debian's guidelines (http://www.debian.org/social_contract http://www.debian.org/social_contract). Stallman himself agreed that it was a good thing for Xiph to relicense their libraries from the LGPL to a permissive free software license (http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/icecast-dev/2001-February/000005.html http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/icecast-dev/2001-February/00...): In response to the change of license, Richard Stallman of the Free Software Foundation says, "I agree. It is wise to make some of the Ogg Vorbis code available for use in proprietary software, so that commercial companies doing proprietary software will use it, and help Vorbis succeed in competition with other formats that would be restricted against our use."
    - spiffworks 16y ago
      Well, we're talking about two things, really- the webm reference implementation and the license under which the patents covering the spec are licensed. I guess the reference implementation is free as in freedom, and the spec is free as in beer to re-implement. This is why 'free standard' is such a pithy and accurate description.
- nicholasjbs 16y ago
  BSD-licensed software is free software according to the FSF (see: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleL...), it's just not copyleft.

pacifika 16y ago

This article would be correct if Google dropped flash together with H.264. The practical result of playing H.264 to Chrome users via Flash instead of through a native open source implementation (Chromium) is surely a net negative for free standards supporters? After all it's "proprietary, nonstandard software."

bryanlarsen 16y ago
I don't understand this position. Dropping H.264 is aligned with the FSF's goals, so of course they should support it. To me, Google's move is an indication that Google will eventually drop and/or downgrade Flash support. You encourage institutions to do the right thing by applauding when they do the right thing. Not by saying "you suck because you didn't take it far enough". You say "Good move doing X. And when you do Y you'll be doubly awesome."
- rimantas 16y ago
  I fail to see how this move is good for end users.
  - drdaeman 16y ago
    By any chance, did you read the actual article?
    - rimantas 16y ago
      Yes I did. Did you?
      - drdaeman 16y ago
        Of course. I'll even quote the article: > H.264 is a patent-encumbered codec; the MPEG LA organization requires developers who implement it to agree to a patent license. This license is fundamentally incompatible with software freedom. It requires developers to restrict how their software can be used, and to collect royalties in many situations. While the wording is not perfect, this is actually about end user freedoms and convenience. There's the same situation is with parts of ffmpeg/libavformat or libmad - you just can't ship and use them completely legally. This is why "restricted formats" notion appeared, and why Ubuntu started shipping Fluendo's non-free encoder binary (http://www.fluendo.com/shop/product/fluendo-mp3-decoder/ http://www.fluendo.com/shop/product/fluendo-mp3-decoder/, previous-to-last paragraph). It was always a problem (albeit, nowadays, minor one) to use proprietary codecs on GNU/Linux systems. Problem not on developers' side, but the for the actual end users. Killing H.264, thus actively encouraging WebM support helps WebM to win the formats battle. In a short term, both end users and developers will experience compatibility problems, but in the end - if WebM will win - both end users and developers will benefit. And please remember that we have Firefox, which - due to various FLOSS reasons - just won't support H.264 anyway.

cletus 16y ago

A few points: > We applaud Google for this change; it's a positive step for free software Except that it further entrenches Flash in the short to medium term, possibly longer. > Most of it is delivered with Flash, which is proprietary, nonstandard software. Exactly. H.264 isn't going away anytime soon so having a Web browser without Flash gets that much harder. With no native support for H.264 in Firefox or (soon) Chrome, bizarrely the most Flash-unencumbered browsers are Safari and Internet Explorer. Consider that for a moment: Internet Explorer. > Free software alternatives like GNU Gnash are available, but the user experience isn't always as seamless as it ought to be. This is a key point but not in the way the author intended and it's worth parsing this statement. The FSF is driven by philosophy here but most users aren't. If you want to attract a plurality of users a necessary precondition is to have the experience be as good if not better than what you're contesting. There is a cost to switching: finding new tools, learning a new process and so on. Users need a reason to switch and ephemeral arguments about "openness" of video on the Web just don't cut it for the majority, at least not while such a choice comes with a subpar experience. > In order to make sure the Web stays free for everyone, we need a free codec to prevail as the de facto standard with HTML5. Like most future specters I believe this one is overblown too. Everyone points to the GIF fiasco. The net result? PNG was born. If the screws are ever put to us on H.264, you'll see exactly the same thing, only quicker. Computing power being what it is today, the effort of re-encoding every video that exists on the Web is actually not that hard of a problem, and is certainly in the realm of what Google can do today, let alone 5-10 years from now. > WebM can be that codec: Google provides a patent license with the standard that is compatible with free software licenses But it should be noted, there is no indemnity against H.264 patent infringement. I'm not saying WebM violates H.264 patents. The reverse may even be true (or both). But the point is that it is a risk. > We can only be free if we reject data formats that are restricted by patents. The elephant in the room here is that the fundamental problem is software patents. They need to be completely abolished. > But the issue's not settled yet. No but it's a bit like iPad vs the rest of the tablets. The issue isn't settled yet, but the iPad has a whopping lead and the smart money is on it for some time to come. H.264, like it or not, is more mature and has more hardware and software support than WebM, which is far less mature.

jasonlotito 16y ago

xutopia 16y ago

I always saw this as a problem with the FSF. They are urging web site operators to use WebM right away when there isn't even support for them. They simply sound so naive when they say "Today, we're also urging Web site operators to distribute videos in the WebM format, and abandon H.264". What they should be saying is "Prepare your web sites to transition to WebM".

drdaeman 16y ago
"Prepare" is way too lax. Many will treat it like stick-it note "oh, I have to make sure someday, shall the transition come, my code won't require major rewrites". Like "preparation" for IPv6 support frequently ends with adding more bits to DB fields and adding several stub functions. Unless you actually get your hands dirty and start doing something, not just preparing, there won't be any significant results. Sure, FSF is quite radical with "and abandon H.264" part, but "distribute videos in the WebM format" part is perfectly fine.
zacharypinter 16y ago
Let's not quibble over minor semantics.
Someone 16y ago
I disagree. You cannot have a revolution without at least some pain.

luigi 16y ago

Ehh, all of a sudden the pro-WebM side got really lame now that the FSF joined the party.

commandar 16y ago

I was discussing this with some people yesterday. I find it incredibly frustrating that the Grubers of the world have spent months attacking Google for supporting the evil, closed Flash, but then manage to spin Google dropping a closed format in favor of an open one as evil and using it as a roundabout way of continuing to hate on Flash. The fact of the matter is that Flash is an entrenched, defacto standard and isn't going away any time soon. HTML5 isn't anywhere close to completely replacing Flash even if it were to disappear in a puff of logic right this moment. HTML5 <video> is in its infancy, and isn't being perpetuated by sheer momentum like Flash. Further, H.264 was a complete non-starter for Mozilla, and Firefox holds nearly 20% of the market. Using H.264 for HTML5 <video> would have guaranteed market segmentation and hurt the chances of a truly open future. This argument about dropping H.264 propagating Flash in the short term is just insanity to me. Flash is already here for the short term. We need to focus on our long-term options for moving to something more open, and the whining about this decision strikes me as totally myopic at best and blind fanboyism at worst.

jasonlotito 16y ago
Google supports Adobe Flash, and has dropped support for Google's implementation of H.264 inside Chrome. One is a plugin. One was not. I agree with your comment, and I find the Flash/H.264/Chrome argument to be childish at best.
- ZeroGravitas 16y ago
  If an Apple or Microsoft blogger finds themselves taking a more hardline stance than the FSF, it's easy to conclude that they're trolling/astroturfing. However if we're talking "childish", then the "Plugins! I thought the point of HTML5 was to avoid plugins" argument wins by a mile. People, including Google, have been pushing HTML5 via various plugins, fallbacks and shims for a good while (e.g. Chrome Frame, Google Gears, Flash Vorbis decode, Java Theora decode etc.)
  - jasonlotito 16y ago
    > However if we're talking "childish", then the "Plugins! I thought the point of HTML5 was to avoid plugins" argument wins by a mile. Which doesn't challenge anything I said. In fact, you can remove plugins from you browser, including Flash, right now.

cmister 16y ago

Or in summary: if you support a free Web, you support WebM and FSF's call for killing H.264. If you don't care, then H.264 seems just fine.

tzs 16y ago
So, to watch a video using H.264, you use a patent encumbered codec, running on a patent encumbered CPU, accelerated by a patent encumbered GPU. The video came over patent encumbered network hardware, or from patent encumbered local storage, over patent encumbered interfaces and patent encumbered connectors. If we switch to WebM, we have one less "patent encumbered" in there (maybe). I'm not impressed with the "free Web" argument.

bsergean 16y ago

Go Google and the FSF. Closed standard like Gif must die or be opened.

bonaldi 16y ago

The content is all in h.264 because it works in 99.9999% of places. You can make every browser support webM tomorrow and that still wouldn't be a compelling reason for publishers to add WebM in favour of the status quo. The only thing that could achieve such a thing would be a device with iOS levels of popularity that a) doesn't support h.264 b) doesn't support Flash. Who is going to make such a device? A: Nobody, because it won't support any web video at all apart from maybe YouTube. You can grouse about open principles all you want, but the big video producers don't care; they will not be a factor. Audience demand is the only thing that matters, and they won't demand WebM when h.264 is already working "fine".

ijuhyftgreduy 16y ago
Google switches youtube to WebM and people will want WebM in their browser, they may even be prepared to switch to chrome if it's the only thing that can view WebM easily. When Google decides to take the internet TV business away from people like Netflix - remember they are an advertising company - they want their own codec to avoid any arguments.
- bonaldi 16y ago
  Yes, YouTube would have to switch to WebM -- ie no support for serving any other codec -- for that to be true. Which is effectively turning off YouTube for every browser and device on the web today. Are they going to do that? No chance. Some day, maybe, but they're not going to lead the way. And while YouTube is still additionally serving h.264, there's still no pressure for everybody else to change.
  - vetinari 16y ago
    They may also turn 480p and higher to be webm only; effectively making h.264 low quality, intended only for "legacy mobile devices".
  - fczuardi 16y ago
    There is a strategy in the middle however for google/youtube to make people want to migrate to browsers and devices that supports webm/vp8: all they have to do is to continue serving both webm and h264 versions, but make the h264 version a worst experience. For example: make all h264 encoded clips on youtube become grayscale while mantainig the vp8 ones high quality and in color. People would not be prevented from watching youtube on iDevices, but watching it on those devices would be like watching an old black and white tv :) And when people start flooding apple feedback and support channels with "why my youtube lost its colors on my ipad?" questions, then maybe Apple can add vp8 support on iOS.

weixiyen 16y ago

If Firefox wasn't supporting h.264, it was kind of pointless for Chrome to support it as well. As a developer, I have to have to resort to flash for h.264 anyways as Firefox has a much bigger market share than Chrome.

marckremers 16y ago

But isn't it too late? http://techcrunch.com/2010/05/01/h-264-66-percent-web-video/ http://techcrunch.com/2010/05/01/h-264-66-percent-web-video/ This is from May last year, I bet it's even higher now. Say by some miracle that webm takes over, even though it's free, it's a Google run project, and we now that Apple chooses stability over availability (i.e. their rejection of Flash) From my experience building a HTML5 video playback portfolio for a client, playing high quality webm/ogg is just not doable yet, even via Amazons CDN. And what i don't get, on a very basic level, are these companies that own these file formats really ever going to cash in on all those files out there? I mean GIF, JPG, PNG are all patented formats, and they are everywhere. Why doesn't Google announce for example that they will also stop supporting JPG/PNG/GI in favor of their open source WebP format? If they were really drawing bold lines they should be honest about it.

jarek 16y ago
PNG is not a patented format. In fact, the patent wars surrounding GIF were a major, perhaps the overriding motivation for development of PNG.

tzs 16y ago

H.264 is the standard for video compression. Period. It is what almost all professional hardware and software supports. It's how video is distributed on disc, via cable, via satellite, and via digital broadcast. It's what consumer hardware supports. Someday it will be replaced, but it will take a technically better standard. WebM is not technically better. Take a time machine and send WebM back about 10 years, and it has a shot. Without a time machine, it is too late. The problem Google and the FSF face is that very few really care about having everything be free in the FSF's sense of free. Heck, even among Linux users, who you'd expect would be the most receptive of wanting everything to be free, very few run the truly free distributions, with no non-free modules or drivers. The vast majority are not even on Linux. They are on Windows and Mac, and so have no qualms about using non-free stuff. To convince people they need to switch to something that is technically inferior, they need to be shown a problem that actually affects them. H.264 being subject to patent licensing in those countries that recognize software or codec patents is not a problem that can be shown to affect most web users or most web video producers, at least in a way they care about. The royalty free license for distributing free video on the web, and the high thresholds before license fees kick in for video producers, ensure that the vast majority of us never do anything that requires coughing up any money, and that takes the problem off most people's radar.

varjag 16y ago
A huge part of the business and consumer world now takes benefit from fruits of free software movement. Your Android smartphone, your $49 Taiwanese wifi router, that Heroku service in the cloud you use - all of them would not exist as they are otherwise. So like it or not, those freedom freaks are entitled to have a say to how things should work. They are too big part of an ecosystem to be ignored.