5 ms·
AFAICT, we (Mozilla) are trying to solve TWO problems: 1. We need a video codec that everybody agrees on for WebRTC. 2. We need a way to play H.264 on Windows
by briansmith 13y ago
AFAICT, we (Mozilla) are trying to solve TWO problems:
1. We need a video codec that everybody agrees on for WebRTC.
2. We need a way to play H.264 on Windows XP and other operating systems that don't provide native H.264 playback, for compatibility with almost all HTML5 <video> content on the web.
If it weren't for problem #2, then I would agree with you more. But, really what Mozilla seems to have said is "Hey, if you provide a free H.264 decoder without field-of-use restrictions, then we'll compromise on WebRTC so we can make sure everybody on every platform can play all the HTML5 video content available on the web."
I don't have an opinion on VP9. But, there's no VP9 content on the web now. There's tons of H.264 content on the web. Mozilla got burned waiting for other players to help with WebM adoption before. Waiting for VP9 would probably just end up with us getting burned again.
FWIW, I work at Mozilla but not on this stuff, and I learned all I know on this topic from Brendan Eich's blog post.
- ghoul2 13y agoI think I am beginning to get the picture here: 1. Mozilla is the only browser that has no legal way to provide integrated H.264. Every other major browser is backed by a corporation and can afford the MPEG LA fee. 2. While Google probably would prefer VP8/VP9 becoming the WebRTC standard, its not like they can't do H.264. So they have been dropping the ball on pushing people towards WebM and away from H.264. 3. (Speculation) Cisco probably made an exploding offer - "We can enable legal H.264 for all your users and foot the bill for it, but only if you agree to it before the WebRTC meeting". 4. No matter what codec wins at the WebRTC meeting, H.264 content ain't going away anytime soon. Mozilla has to have it either way. This is an interesting maneuver by the H.264 lobby. It leaves Mozilla very little wriggle room. In hindsight, I have to wonder if a better deal could have been worked out by Mozilla actively seeking a license from MPEG LA for some fixed one-time sum in perpetuity in return for Mozillas' compromise on H.264. Maybe a kickstarter could have been then done to raise the required one-time fee. Who knows - maybe Redhat, Ubuntu etc could have been asked to chip in. Sigh. Big money tends to get its way. :(
- dublinben 13y ago1. Both Chromium (nominally backed by Google) and Opera lack the H.264 codec by default.
- hdevalence 13y agoChromium and Opera are not major browsers.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- gsnedders 13y agoThere are markets where Opera has significant marketshare and cannot be ignored; I'm unaware of anywhere where that is true of Chromium, however.
- bradleyjg 13y agoAt least according to the wikipedia page, it looks like the Mozilla Foundation brings in $300M a year in revenue. I still wouldn't say that $6M a year is trivial for them, but it certainly isn't an impossible bridge to cross. Up until now the Mozilla party line has been that they don't want to pay the patent fees for reasons of principle. So it looks to me like there was another option: bite the bullet, pay the licensing fee and distribute their own blessed binaries (they still couldn't grant a license to people building from source), then feel free to take whatever position on WebRTC they thought was best.
- zanny 13y agoThis just makes me wonder where the hell the reference implementation of Dalaa is already.
- threeseed 13y agoHonestly who cares ? Without Apple, Microsoft, Samsung and Sony on board (all are in MPEG-LA and will adopt H.265) it is dead on arrival.