6 ms·

How Patents Are Ruining the Adoption of HTML5 Video

73 points by vu0tran 13y ago

9999 13y ago
I was under the impression that Mozilla has already moved to support h.264 by using the host OS support for h.264: http://www.webmonkey.com/2013/01/mozilla-brings-native-h-264-to-firefox-nightly/ http://www.webmonkey.com/2013/01/mozilla-brings-native-h-264...
- slickninja1 13y ago
  That makes two of us, so I rooted out an official source: https://wiki.mozilla.org/index.php?title=QA/H264-AAC-MP3_support&ampdiff=526346&ampoldid=prev https://wiki.mozilla.org/index.php?title=QA/H264-AAC-MP3_sup... Looks like the blog is incorrect. I'm curious if part of the H264 move has anything to do with FireFox OS and the plethora of mobile chipsets with hardware acceleration.
  - shmerl 13y ago
    Yes it does. Mozilla couldn't avoid using H.264 in Firefox OS because VPx hardware decoding isn't widespread yet (though it catches up in the newest SoCs). But it uses the capability of the underlying system. I don't think Mozilla licenses anything from MPEG-LA.
    - vetinari 13y ago
      Newest SoCs as in we are already on second generation with support? OMAP4 and Tegra2 supported it years back. Today, almost all SoCs support it, from Exynos to Rockchip. Notable SoCs that do not support VP8 are Apple's Ax. Not that it is a surprise.
      - shmerl 13y ago
        Availability in SoCs is paired by actual deployment of those SoCs to end user devices. The majority of currently available end user devices don't have hardware VP8 decoding yet. As time goes by and newer SoCs push out older ones this will improve, but we aren't there yet.
- anon1385 13y ago
  Their opposition to H264 and MP3 was always more about political grandstanding than anything to do with them having to pay money. They gave in on the MP3 issue too: http://stackoverflow.com/a/12203792 http://stackoverflow.com/a/12203792 Update October 2012: Wooohooo! Brendan Eich just announced on his blog that work for MP3 and H264 support in Firefox is underway. You can track the work on BugZilla: Support H.264/AAC/MP3 video/audio playback on desktop Firefox Update February 2013: After much heavy lifting from Firefox developer Chris Pearce, this patch flips the switch to enable MP3, MP4, H.264, and AAC playback by default in HTML5 <audio> and <video> elements when running on Windows 7 and later. We should see some native web MP3 support in the next stable FF release. Update April 2013: Woohooo! The latest stable Firefox has experimental support for MP3. To turn it on, type about:config in Firefox, find media.windows-media-foundation.enabled and set it to true. Restart Firefox, and you're all set; go to a site with HTML5 audio (e.g. my radio site) and you'll see Firefox is indeed playing the native MP3 and not resorting to a Flash fallback. Update May 2013: At last! Firefox 21 was released today, and it includes native HTML5 MP3 support on Windows. I just verified it supports native MP3 audio out-of-the-box, provided your operating system supports it. I tested on Windows 8, but I believe this will automatically work on Windows 7 and Vista.
  - shmerl 13y ago
    Such opposition is reasonable. Someone has to fight against closed codecs. But fighting alone is hard. Google pretended to be the "white knight" when they promised that they'll drop H.264 support from Chrome, but they deserted the battle and didn't keep the promise. They could really influence the industry by dropping H.264 support from Youtube, but they don't have guts to do it since it's quite disruptive. See also https://hacks.mozilla.org/2012/03/video-mobile-and-the-open-web/ https://hacks.mozilla.org/2012/03/video-mobile-and-the-open-...
    - 0x09 13y ago
      I'm positive that anyone who misuses the word "closed" to refer to patent encumbrance has never had to suffer through working with actual by-definition closed codecs.
- vu0tran 13y ago
  Thanks for that information. I've corrected this and also credited you and included the link.
- GhotiFish 13y ago
  ... I missed that memo. Windows 7 only h264 support what the f... i... am Utterly speechless. Mozilla. The only company I knew had my back. What on earth happened?! The world got a bit darker today for me.
  - padenot 13y ago
    Windows 7, 8, Firefox OS, Firefox for Android are working as we speak on release. gstreamer is working on Linux and Mac, but not built by default _yet_, it should be ready in a couple weeks or something. We decided to release the support for mp3/h264 as we implemented them, rather than waiting for all the platforms to have the support. Supporting Android and Firefox OS, then Windows (in that order) is a simple matter of prioritization and human resources. Most of our users use Windows, so it kind of made sense to have released support for Windows first. I can point you to builds of Firefox for Linux/Mac with gstreamer enabled if you want to test something and don't want to compile it yourself, username at mozilla dot com.
    - Camillo 13y ago
      Why in the world would they use gstreamer on Mac?
      - thristian 13y ago
        Because they were already implementing gstreamer support for Linux, and gstreamer has a high-quality back-end for OS X's apparently awkward audio APIs that I guess Mozilla didn't want to reimplement from scratch.
    - GhotiFish 13y ago
      My issues are three fold: that Mozilla is propagating proprietary standards, that it is selectively implementing per platform on a majority basis, and that by doing this it is further fragmenting the web. My issue was not whether it actually works or not on a smattering of platforms. I believe you there. Though I appreciate the response.
shmerl 13y ago
The third format is OGG as Linux does not support H.264 nor VP8 out of the box. That's a wrong claim. VP8 support on Linux is commonplace. As well as H.264 support (if we are talking about system frameworks like gstreamer and etc.). Browsers is another matter, and they ship with their own decoders. Mozilla provides an option to use gstreamer for Firefox, but it's not built by default. Mozilla can't use built in H.264 decoders simply because it will require licensing and will make it non redistributable. Also, OGG is not a codec, it's a container. The author probably meant Theora.
- jlarocco 13y ago
  Yeah, completely wrong. I play H.264 on my Linux machine all the time.
- anonymous 13y ago
  I wonder why it's not on by default. It can't be illegal to ship a browser that uses gstreamer, right? Users can purchase and install fluendo's codec pack to decode h.264 videos, or use the hw decoders in their graphics cards.
  - shmerl 13y ago
    Mostly for technical reasons. See: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=794282 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=794282
  - wmf 13y ago
    The main reason was Mozilla's openness martyrdom, but they've relaxed that position somewhat. There are still problems with pluggable codecs (of while GStreamer is one form): different users will have different codecs installed, leading to poor interoperability and trojan "codec packs" have been a vector for malware.
  - wmf 13y ago
    The main reason was Mozilla's openness martyrdom, but they've relaxed that position somewhat. There are still problems with pluggable codecs (of while GStreamer is one form): different users will have different codecs installed, leading to poor interoperability and trojan "codec packs" have been a vector for malware.
shmerl 13y ago
Google recently made an agreement with MPEG-LA, though it can be incompatible with open source licensing: http://www.h-online.com/news/item/VP8-WebM-cross-licence-incompatible-with-open-source-1867383.html http://www.h-online.com/news/item/VP8-WebM-cross-licence-inc... Then there are also attacks on VPx by Nokia, which became a patent troll serving MS interests lately: http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Nokia-lines-up-patents-against-VP8-video-codec-1829299.html http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Nokia-lines-up-patent... http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Third-Nokia-patent-takes-the-field-against-VP8-1871391.html http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Third-Nokia-patent-ta... See also: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2035/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2035/ There is hope that Nokia is just FUDing, and these patents can be invalidated or shown to be irrelevant to VP8. (That's the story with Opus audio codec being attacked by various patent trolls). But all this takes time and these trolls naturally hate the idea of open HTML5 video.
- kvb 13y ago
  Whatever you may think of their patents or their strategy, is it fair to call Nokia a troll? Are they not actually manufacturing products which implement the patents?
  - shmerl 13y ago
    Often the term "patent troll" is used to denote NPEs which don't produce any technology. However a broader meaning is simply extortionist / racketeer. Whether extortionist produces anything useful is already secondary. So I think it's proper to call patent aggressors trolls, especially when this aggression is directed simply to block competition. In Nokia case, their products are not harmed by VP8 in any way. They just picked up a pile of patents for the sole reason of attacking an open codec and to prevent its adoption. It's also probable that it's not even Nokia's own initiative, but someone's who is behind them. Using third party patent trolls to fight competition while staying in background to avoid attention is a common technique amongst patent aggressors known as patent privateering: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_Privateer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_Privateer
- DannyBee 13y ago
ernesth 13y ago
Is this post coming from the past? It cites a table from diveintohtml that was made in 2011. Figures of h264 penetration also dating from 2011. Things have changed since then: firefox has announced it would support h264. Opera has had versions supporting h264 but no longer does. Also, it fails to mention Google's agreement with MPEG-LA. Finally, more than not giving anything new, it contains mistakes and confusions, the paragraph on Linux is terrible as it confuses containers and codecs, claims wrongfully that linux does not support h264 nor vp8 on the browser out of the box (all graphical linux browsers do support h264 or vp8, most support both). The only good thing to keep from this article is its title (oh and the update about firefox nightly).
- kevingadd 13y ago
  Keep in mind that Firefox's H264 support is still dependent on your OS coming with a licensed H264 encoder (licensed as in patent license fees) Mozilla still can't ship a H264 decoder of their own.
  - J_Darnley 13y ago
    They don't have to. Ship a crippled version of libavcodec so I can replace it. Or in the glorious linux case: link to a system version of libavcodec. Or just get some balls and ship like you are Videolan.
    - fpgeek 13y ago
      Unlike VideoLAN, Mozilla has a big, obvious income stream for H.264 patent-holders to go after. Mozilla, quite reasonably, thinks they should spend that income advancing their mission rather than paying off patent holders (in a way that undermines it). They're also, again unlike VideoLAN, headquartered in a very, very software-patent-friendly jurisdiction. Mozilla isn't refusing to ship H.264 because they lack "balls". They're refusing because there are serious practical constraints that get in the way.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
josephlord 13y ago
H.264 / MPEG4 part 10 / AVC Yes it is patented which is a definite disadvantage compared with a theoretical[4] patent free codec but it has some real advantages. 1) The standard is controlled and defined by a collective industry group under the auspices of ISO. [1] 2) Most of the major players in video technology at the time took part in the standardisation so are committed to FRAND patent licensing terms. [2] 3) In almost all cases and commercial business models (that do not involve Free software) the MPEG-LA H.264 patent license is really very reasonable and unlikely to cause problems to an otherwise healthy business. Note that the license Google has to the MPEG-LA pool of patents while free is NOT compatible with Free software. 4) Any companies not in the MPEG-LA pool that popped up now with demands really would trolls in the original sense that they have sat under the bridge for a long time waiting for a juicy opportunity rather than being upfront earlier. I don't think that this would help them in a legal case although there is no guarantee that they don't exist. [3] 5) H.264 is really quite good although the latest codecs are showing what can be done with further development and processing power. 6) H.264 decoding (and often encoding) is cooked into a massive amount of existing and deployed devices in ways that cannot be adapted to VP8/VP9 by a software update. For now H.264 is the no brainer option for any commercial system although multi codec support may be worthwhile in some cases. If you want patent free I recommend MPEG1 as I believe any patents on it should now be expired or at least expiring very soon if they were granted a long time after filing. I'm glad that Firefox has backed down and will now use the OS codecs to allow playback of H.264. [1] The OOXML case shows that this isn't foolproof but in my view it is a better option than the standard being controlled by a single company even if the controlling company publishes the source code. This applied to Microsoft when they offered VC-1 as a free alternative to H.264 (there is now an MPEG-LA pool) and to Google now with VP8 and VP9 now. Google is the new Microsoft and has fully learnt the lessons of "Embrace, extend and extinguish". [2] Not Free software compatible but better than nothing. And even Google's license to the VP8 patents from the MPEG-LA pool does not seem to grant Free software compatible rights. [3] There is a greater risk of people popping up with claims against VP8 or VP9 as they are newer and less prominent. The MPEG-LA's call for a pool of patents has helped draw out those patent owners and many have joined the pool and reached terms with Google (although Nokia and maybe others haven't. [4] Realistically for patent free greater than 20 years old is the answer so it probably needs to be MPEG1.
jamespollack 13y ago
HLS (http adaptive streaming) is non-existant in Chrome, except for on the Google TV. So I end up having to develop in Safari, which is painful. Especially when I'm making apps for the Google TV (and other SmartTV Platforms). ::le sigh::

73 points by vu0tran 13y ago

9999 13y ago

I was under the impression that Mozilla has already moved to support h.264 by using the host OS support for h.264: http://www.webmonkey.com/2013/01/mozilla-brings-native-h-264-to-firefox-nightly/ http://www.webmonkey.com/2013/01/mozilla-brings-native-h-264...

slickninja1 13y ago
That makes two of us, so I rooted out an official source: https://wiki.mozilla.org/index.php?title=QA/H264-AAC-MP3_support&ampdiff=526346&ampoldid=prev https://wiki.mozilla.org/index.php?title=QA/H264-AAC-MP3_sup... Looks like the blog is incorrect. I'm curious if part of the H264 move has anything to do with FireFox OS and the plethora of mobile chipsets with hardware acceleration.
- shmerl 13y ago
  Yes it does. Mozilla couldn't avoid using H.264 in Firefox OS because VPx hardware decoding isn't widespread yet (though it catches up in the newest SoCs). But it uses the capability of the underlying system. I don't think Mozilla licenses anything from MPEG-LA.
  - vetinari 13y ago
    Newest SoCs as in we are already on second generation with support? OMAP4 and Tegra2 supported it years back. Today, almost all SoCs support it, from Exynos to Rockchip. Notable SoCs that do not support VP8 are Apple's Ax. Not that it is a surprise.
    - shmerl 13y ago
      Availability in SoCs is paired by actual deployment of those SoCs to end user devices. The majority of currently available end user devices don't have hardware VP8 decoding yet. As time goes by and newer SoCs push out older ones this will improve, but we aren't there yet.
anon1385 13y ago
Their opposition to H264 and MP3 was always more about political grandstanding than anything to do with them having to pay money. They gave in on the MP3 issue too: http://stackoverflow.com/a/12203792 http://stackoverflow.com/a/12203792 Update October 2012: Wooohooo! Brendan Eich just announced on his blog that work for MP3 and H264 support in Firefox is underway. You can track the work on BugZilla: Support H.264/AAC/MP3 video/audio playback on desktop Firefox Update February 2013: After much heavy lifting from Firefox developer Chris Pearce, this patch flips the switch to enable MP3, MP4, H.264, and AAC playback by default in HTML5 <audio> and <video> elements when running on Windows 7 and later. We should see some native web MP3 support in the next stable FF release. Update April 2013: Woohooo! The latest stable Firefox has experimental support for MP3. To turn it on, type about:config in Firefox, find media.windows-media-foundation.enabled and set it to true. Restart Firefox, and you're all set; go to a site with HTML5 audio (e.g. my radio site) and you'll see Firefox is indeed playing the native MP3 and not resorting to a Flash fallback. Update May 2013: At last! Firefox 21 was released today, and it includes native HTML5 MP3 support on Windows. I just verified it supports native MP3 audio out-of-the-box, provided your operating system supports it. I tested on Windows 8, but I believe this will automatically work on Windows 7 and Vista.
- shmerl 13y ago
  Such opposition is reasonable. Someone has to fight against closed codecs. But fighting alone is hard. Google pretended to be the "white knight" when they promised that they'll drop H.264 support from Chrome, but they deserted the battle and didn't keep the promise. They could really influence the industry by dropping H.264 support from Youtube, but they don't have guts to do it since it's quite disruptive. See also https://hacks.mozilla.org/2012/03/video-mobile-and-the-open-web/ https://hacks.mozilla.org/2012/03/video-mobile-and-the-open-...
  - 0x09 13y ago
    I'm positive that anyone who misuses the word "closed" to refer to patent encumbrance has never had to suffer through working with actual by-definition closed codecs.
vu0tran 13y ago
Thanks for that information. I've corrected this and also credited you and included the link.
GhotiFish 13y ago
... I missed that memo. Windows 7 only h264 support what the f... i... am Utterly speechless. Mozilla. The only company I knew had my back. What on earth happened?! The world got a bit darker today for me.
- padenot 13y ago
  Windows 7, 8, Firefox OS, Firefox for Android are working as we speak on release. gstreamer is working on Linux and Mac, but not built by default _yet_, it should be ready in a couple weeks or something. We decided to release the support for mp3/h264 as we implemented them, rather than waiting for all the platforms to have the support. Supporting Android and Firefox OS, then Windows (in that order) is a simple matter of prioritization and human resources. Most of our users use Windows, so it kind of made sense to have released support for Windows first. I can point you to builds of Firefox for Linux/Mac with gstreamer enabled if you want to test something and don't want to compile it yourself, username at mozilla dot com.
  - Camillo 13y ago
    Why in the world would they use gstreamer on Mac?
    - thristian 13y ago
      Because they were already implementing gstreamer support for Linux, and gstreamer has a high-quality back-end for OS X's apparently awkward audio APIs that I guess Mozilla didn't want to reimplement from scratch.
  - GhotiFish 13y ago
    My issues are three fold: that Mozilla is propagating proprietary standards, that it is selectively implementing per platform on a majority basis, and that by doing this it is further fragmenting the web. My issue was not whether it actually works or not on a smattering of platforms. I believe you there. Though I appreciate the response.

shmerl 13y ago

The third format is OGG as Linux does not support H.264 nor VP8 out of the box. That's a wrong claim. VP8 support on Linux is commonplace. As well as H.264 support (if we are talking about system frameworks like gstreamer and etc.). Browsers is another matter, and they ship with their own decoders. Mozilla provides an option to use gstreamer for Firefox, but it's not built by default. Mozilla can't use built in H.264 decoders simply because it will require licensing and will make it non redistributable. Also, OGG is not a codec, it's a container. The author probably meant Theora.

jlarocco 13y ago
Yeah, completely wrong. I play H.264 on my Linux machine all the time.
anonymous 13y ago
I wonder why it's not on by default. It can't be illegal to ship a browser that uses gstreamer, right? Users can purchase and install fluendo's codec pack to decode h.264 videos, or use the hw decoders in their graphics cards.
- shmerl 13y ago
  Mostly for technical reasons. See: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=794282 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=794282
- wmf 13y ago
  The main reason was Mozilla's openness martyrdom, but they've relaxed that position somewhat. There are still problems with pluggable codecs (of while GStreamer is one form): different users will have different codecs installed, leading to poor interoperability and trojan "codec packs" have been a vector for malware.
- wmf 13y ago
  The main reason was Mozilla's openness martyrdom, but they've relaxed that position somewhat. There are still problems with pluggable codecs (of while GStreamer is one form): different users will have different codecs installed, leading to poor interoperability and trojan "codec packs" have been a vector for malware.

shmerl 13y ago

Google recently made an agreement with MPEG-LA, though it can be incompatible with open source licensing: http://www.h-online.com/news/item/VP8-WebM-cross-licence-incompatible-with-open-source-1867383.html http://www.h-online.com/news/item/VP8-WebM-cross-licence-inc... Then there are also attacks on VPx by Nokia, which became a patent troll serving MS interests lately: http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Nokia-lines-up-patents-against-VP8-video-codec-1829299.html http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Nokia-lines-up-patent... http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Third-Nokia-patent-takes-the-field-against-VP8-1871391.html http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Third-Nokia-patent-ta... See also: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2035/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2035/ There is hope that Nokia is just FUDing, and these patents can be invalidated or shown to be irrelevant to VP8. (That's the story with Opus audio codec being attacked by various patent trolls). But all this takes time and these trolls naturally hate the idea of open HTML5 video.

kvb 13y ago
Whatever you may think of their patents or their strategy, is it fair to call Nokia a troll? Are they not actually manufacturing products which implement the patents?
- shmerl 13y ago
  Often the term "patent troll" is used to denote NPEs which don't produce any technology. However a broader meaning is simply extortionist / racketeer. Whether extortionist produces anything useful is already secondary. So I think it's proper to call patent aggressors trolls, especially when this aggression is directed simply to block competition. In Nokia case, their products are not harmed by VP8 in any way. They just picked up a pile of patents for the sole reason of attacking an open codec and to prevent its adoption. It's also probable that it's not even Nokia's own initiative, but someone's who is behind them. Using third party patent trolls to fight competition while staying in background to avoid attention is a common technique amongst patent aggressors known as patent privateering: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_Privateer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_Privateer
DannyBee 13y ago

ernesth 13y ago

Is this post coming from the past? It cites a table from diveintohtml that was made in 2011. Figures of h264 penetration also dating from 2011. Things have changed since then: firefox has announced it would support h264. Opera has had versions supporting h264 but no longer does. Also, it fails to mention Google's agreement with MPEG-LA. Finally, more than not giving anything new, it contains mistakes and confusions, the paragraph on Linux is terrible as it confuses containers and codecs, claims wrongfully that linux does not support h264 nor vp8 on the browser out of the box (all graphical linux browsers do support h264 or vp8, most support both). The only good thing to keep from this article is its title (oh and the update about firefox nightly).

kevingadd 13y ago
Keep in mind that Firefox's H264 support is still dependent on your OS coming with a licensed H264 encoder (licensed as in patent license fees) Mozilla still can't ship a H264 decoder of their own.
- J_Darnley 13y ago
  They don't have to. Ship a crippled version of libavcodec so I can replace it. Or in the glorious linux case: link to a system version of libavcodec. Or just get some balls and ship like you are Videolan.
  - fpgeek 13y ago
    Unlike VideoLAN, Mozilla has a big, obvious income stream for H.264 patent-holders to go after. Mozilla, quite reasonably, thinks they should spend that income advancing their mission rather than paying off patent holders (in a way that undermines it). They're also, again unlike VideoLAN, headquartered in a very, very software-patent-friendly jurisdiction. Mozilla isn't refusing to ship H.264 because they lack "balls". They're refusing because there are serious practical constraints that get in the way.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]

josephlord 13y ago

H.264 / MPEG4 part 10 / AVC Yes it is patented which is a definite disadvantage compared with a theoretical[4] patent free codec but it has some real advantages. 1) The standard is controlled and defined by a collective industry group under the auspices of ISO. [1] 2) Most of the major players in video technology at the time took part in the standardisation so are committed to FRAND patent licensing terms. [2] 3) In almost all cases and commercial business models (that do not involve Free software) the MPEG-LA H.264 patent license is really very reasonable and unlikely to cause problems to an otherwise healthy business. Note that the license Google has to the MPEG-LA pool of patents while free is NOT compatible with Free software. 4) Any companies not in the MPEG-LA pool that popped up now with demands really would trolls in the original sense that they have sat under the bridge for a long time waiting for a juicy opportunity rather than being upfront earlier. I don't think that this would help them in a legal case although there is no guarantee that they don't exist. [3] 5) H.264 is really quite good although the latest codecs are showing what can be done with further development and processing power. 6) H.264 decoding (and often encoding) is cooked into a massive amount of existing and deployed devices in ways that cannot be adapted to VP8/VP9 by a software update. For now H.264 is the no brainer option for any commercial system although multi codec support may be worthwhile in some cases. If you want patent free I recommend MPEG1 as I believe any patents on it should now be expired or at least expiring very soon if they were granted a long time after filing. I'm glad that Firefox has backed down and will now use the OS codecs to allow playback of H.264. [1] The OOXML case shows that this isn't foolproof but in my view it is a better option than the standard being controlled by a single company even if the controlling company publishes the source code. This applied to Microsoft when they offered VC-1 as a free alternative to H.264 (there is now an MPEG-LA pool) and to Google now with VP8 and VP9 now. Google is the new Microsoft and has fully learnt the lessons of "Embrace, extend and extinguish". [2] Not Free software compatible but better than nothing. And even Google's license to the VP8 patents from the MPEG-LA pool does not seem to grant Free software compatible rights. [3] There is a greater risk of people popping up with claims against VP8 or VP9 as they are newer and less prominent. The MPEG-LA's call for a pool of patents has helped draw out those patent owners and many have joined the pool and reached terms with Google (although Nokia and maybe others haven't. [4] Realistically for patent free greater than 20 years old is the answer so it probably needs to be MPEG1.

jamespollack 13y ago

HLS (http adaptive streaming) is non-existant in Chrome, except for on the Google TV. So I end up having to develop in Safari, which is painful. Especially when I'm making apps for the Google TV (and other SmartTV Platforms). ::le sigh::