8 ms·
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,
by 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> Except that it further entrenches Flash in the short to medium term, possibly longer. Only because Microsoft and Apple choose not to support WebM. Prior to Google's choice, Firefox (with rather significant browser usage stats) wasn't supporting H.264 either, which kept Flash on the web. Also, people keep referring to IE, but it still needs Flash. Sure, IE9 is coming, but we'll see what the adoption rates will be like. Point is, Google throwing out H.264 didn't change the short or medium landscape much. > Everyone points to the GIF fiasco. The net result? PNG was born. You completely miss the point. GIF is a lesson, and we should learn from it. More importantly, PNG wasn't adopted over night. You can't just flip a switch and make everything alright. > If the screws are ever put to us on H.264, you'll see exactly the same thing, only quicker. Or, you can avoid the entire problem, put effort into free formats now. Don't repeat past mistakes. > The elephant in the room here is that the fundamental problem is software patents. They need to be completely abolished. Yes. Supporting them doesn't help matters.
- masklinn 16y ago> Only because Microsoft and Apple choose not to support WebM. When they made their choice WebM wasn't an option because it didn't even exist yet. Microsoft might be a different issue, but Apple has now shipped almost 150M devices with hardware h.264 support and no webm support at all. > You completely miss the point. GIF is a lesson, and we should learn from it. GIF is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand (or, if you want to reach for it, WebM is actually more at risk of a GIF-type scenario than h.264)
- jasonlotito 16y ago> When they made their choice WebM wasn't an option because it didn't even exist yet. IE9 is still in development. They can still choose to support WebM. Apple could still choose to WebM support. The point isn't that Apple and Microsoft can choose. Rather, you can't expect to ask Google to support H.264 and not ask Microsoft and Apple to support WebM. Apple and Microsoft don't want to support it. Fine. Google doesn't want to support it. Fine. Neither H.264 and WebM are written into the standard. Fine. Let the competition begin. The best technology that meets all the needs of the various groups will win. > GIF is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand (or, if you want to reach for it, WebM is actually more at risk of a GIF-type scenario than h.264) No, and no. I'd explain more, but I can't follow your logic. (Nor do I really want to try. Sorry, but you seem far too emotional about the topic. I'm probably wrong, but your comment comes off that way).