7 ms·

Yes this sucks, it's obviously MPEGLA's (of which Cisco is a member as a h264 patent holder) move to prevent WebRTC from standardizing around VP8/VP9 (which is

Yes this sucks, it's obviously MPEGLA's (of which Cisco is a member as a h264 patent holder) move to prevent WebRTC from standardizing around VP8/VP9 (which is already supported in Firefox and Chrome), so instead we are to rely on a binary blob from Cisco for royalty free WebRTC (Flash all over again). The big stink is how Firefox is supporting this, it's like a huge betrayal of the principles of an open web which is what I directly associate Mozilla with. As a long time Firefox user and promoter I feel betrayed.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
BrendanEich 13y ago
We "betrayed" by not doing what, exactly? H.264 won the HTML5 video battle, as noted at http://brendaneich.com/2012/03/video-mobile-and-the-open-web/ http://brendaneich.com/2012/03/video-mobile-and-the-open-web.... If anyone betrayed someone then, it was Google for not doing as they explicitly blogged they would by removing H.264 support from HTML5 video in Chrome. (But I understand why they didn't; they're realists.) For WebRTC where there is no extant/legacy content reason for us (not speaking for Cisco) to require H.264, we prefer VP8 over baseline H.264, but do not at this point want to rule out either. And on mobile devices, especially at the low end, the h/w codec advantage for H.264 is material. Even next-year-announced chipsets with VP9 support tend to have only h/w VP9 decoding and at best s/w encoding (perhaps on an extra ARM core!). Your fancy camera with video short-take capabality has boiled H.264 encoding as well as decoding into even low-end SoCs. How much this means for battery life, we are still digging into, but it's not trivial for long WebRTC calls. Instead of dramatic talk about betrayal, where you seem to expect Mozilla to fall on the nearest sword stood up and aimed at our gut (probably by a competitor), and die a glorious but pointless death, think about the long run. H.264's price ceiling is now $0. This matters for future codecs. Between our work on Daala, and downloadable codecs such as OTOY's ORBX.js, there is a better and unrestricted future to invent. Join us, if you can be realistic about H.264 h/w advantages. /be
- gillianseed 13y ago
  You already knew about how much more/better support h264 had long before you embarked on what now comes across as nothing but a charade as you turn coat ONE WEEK before the WebRTC future is being voted on, you KNEW this so what has changed? Oh, what has changed is that now you, Mozilla, can use h264 royalty free, that is what has changed. So suddenly open source royalty free standards aren't that important anymore. I threw up a little in my mouth when I read -'we lost the fight' from Monty, you didn't fight! Instead you switched sides one week before the vote because MPEGLA threw you a bone. And if all it boils down to in the end is 'hardware advantages' then you can just drop the pretense of Dalaa right now, it will NEVER be anything but much less supported than the latest offering from the MPEGLA cartel, so from that very perspective it's nothing but vaporware. MPEGLA was terrified of WebRTC and HTML5 standardising under a truly royalty free open source codec which could be used anywhere by anyone, so they gave you the 'flash'-style binary plugin for 'free' and you swallowed it, hook, line and sinker. This was the chance to break the royalty-laden video technology monopoly of MPEGLA by getting a truly free codec standarised, and despite you having made a show of 'carrying the torch' for royalty free open source web standards you sold out one week before showdown when Cisco called with an offer. They got you cheap.
  - BrendanEich 13y ago
    You are not making any sense. First, MTI votes in IETF are tricky to predict, but here is a safe bet: VPx was never going to win sole MTI. Not ever. Second, if we had not been fighting -- and holding to only WebM for HTML5 video until last year -- while our competition was shipping H.264 for HTML video, you might be able to say that we didn't fight. If we had not tried to make s/w VP8 perform on lower-end mobile phones ahead of others including Google, you might make that charge. But we did those things and failed. We learned from those negative results. What have you done? What have you learned? Where is your skin in the game? Third, MPEG LA has not thrown us a bone. Cisco != MPEG LA. Taking H.264 to zero price is a net public good and a prerequisite for getting RF licensing of part or all of H.264 for all desktop systems (since rents there, as opposed to on mobile devices, are running low). When we do that in the next year (or sooner) based on taking the price to zero, and gain free as in speech licensing, will you thank us? Not likely. Fourth, MPEG LA was not terrified of HTML5 standardizing on a truly RF codec, because HTML5 was never going to do any such thing. Now you're just confabulating. Again, read http://brendaneich.com/2012/03/video-mobile-and-the-open-web/ http://brendaneich.com/2012/03/video-mobile-and-the-open-web... and wake up and smell last year's coffee. As for "they got you cheap", if I were about money, I would have gone to Google ages ago. If Mozilla were about money we would have sold out in any number of ways. This is not about money, it is about interoperation and zero-price ceiling for H.264 now, and RF licensing for desktop next -- and after that, better codecs that are defensibly unencumbered and/or downloadable in JS and WebGL2 or better (probably both). None of this is easy to pull off. Rejecting interoperation is a sure way to die fast for no good end. Shouting about betrayal on HN is cheap and easy by comparison. Try doing something productive for a change. /be

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

BrendanEich 13y ago

We "betrayed" by not doing what, exactly? H.264 won the HTML5 video battle, as noted at http://brendaneich.com/2012/03/video-mobile-and-the-open-web/ http://brendaneich.com/2012/03/video-mobile-and-the-open-web.... If anyone betrayed someone then, it was Google for not doing as they explicitly blogged they would by removing H.264 support from HTML5 video in Chrome. (But I understand why they didn't; they're realists.) For WebRTC where there is no extant/legacy content reason for us (not speaking for Cisco) to require H.264, we prefer VP8 over baseline H.264, but do not at this point want to rule out either. And on mobile devices, especially at the low end, the h/w codec advantage for H.264 is material. Even next-year-announced chipsets with VP9 support tend to have only h/w VP9 decoding and at best s/w encoding (perhaps on an extra ARM core!). Your fancy camera with video short-take capabality has boiled H.264 encoding as well as decoding into even low-end SoCs. How much this means for battery life, we are still digging into, but it's not trivial for long WebRTC calls. Instead of dramatic talk about betrayal, where you seem to expect Mozilla to fall on the nearest sword stood up and aimed at our gut (probably by a competitor), and die a glorious but pointless death, think about the long run. H.264's price ceiling is now $0. This matters for future codecs. Between our work on Daala, and downloadable codecs such as OTOY's ORBX.js, there is a better and unrestricted future to invent. Join us, if you can be realistic about H.264 h/w advantages. /be

gillianseed 13y ago
You already knew about how much more/better support h264 had long before you embarked on what now comes across as nothing but a charade as you turn coat ONE WEEK before the WebRTC future is being voted on, you KNEW this so what has changed? Oh, what has changed is that now you, Mozilla, can use h264 royalty free, that is what has changed. So suddenly open source royalty free standards aren't that important anymore. I threw up a little in my mouth when I read -'we lost the fight' from Monty, you didn't fight! Instead you switched sides one week before the vote because MPEGLA threw you a bone. And if all it boils down to in the end is 'hardware advantages' then you can just drop the pretense of Dalaa right now, it will NEVER be anything but much less supported than the latest offering from the MPEGLA cartel, so from that very perspective it's nothing but vaporware. MPEGLA was terrified of WebRTC and HTML5 standardising under a truly royalty free open source codec which could be used anywhere by anyone, so they gave you the 'flash'-style binary plugin for 'free' and you swallowed it, hook, line and sinker. This was the chance to break the royalty-laden video technology monopoly of MPEGLA by getting a truly free codec standarised, and despite you having made a show of 'carrying the torch' for royalty free open source web standards you sold out one week before showdown when Cisco called with an offer. They got you cheap.
- BrendanEich 13y ago
  You are not making any sense. First, MTI votes in IETF are tricky to predict, but here is a safe bet: VPx was never going to win sole MTI. Not ever. Second, if we had not been fighting -- and holding to only WebM for HTML5 video until last year -- while our competition was shipping H.264 for HTML video, you might be able to say that we didn't fight. If we had not tried to make s/w VP8 perform on lower-end mobile phones ahead of others including Google, you might make that charge. But we did those things and failed. We learned from those negative results. What have you done? What have you learned? Where is your skin in the game? Third, MPEG LA has not thrown us a bone. Cisco != MPEG LA. Taking H.264 to zero price is a net public good and a prerequisite for getting RF licensing of part or all of H.264 for all desktop systems (since rents there, as opposed to on mobile devices, are running low). When we do that in the next year (or sooner) based on taking the price to zero, and gain free as in speech licensing, will you thank us? Not likely. Fourth, MPEG LA was not terrified of HTML5 standardizing on a truly RF codec, because HTML5 was never going to do any such thing. Now you're just confabulating. Again, read http://brendaneich.com/2012/03/video-mobile-and-the-open-web/ http://brendaneich.com/2012/03/video-mobile-and-the-open-web... and wake up and smell last year's coffee. As for "they got you cheap", if I were about money, I would have gone to Google ages ago. If Mozilla were about money we would have sold out in any number of ways. This is not about money, it is about interoperation and zero-price ceiling for H.264 now, and RF licensing for desktop next -- and after that, better codecs that are defensibly unencumbered and/or downloadable in JS and WebGL2 or better (probably both). None of this is easy to pull off. Rejecting interoperation is a sure way to die fast for no good end. Shouting about betrayal on HN is cheap and easy by comparison. Try doing something productive for a change. /be