
Simple Questions for Google Regarding Chrome’s Dropping of H.264 - danilocampos
http://daringfireball.net/2011/01/simple_questions
======
kjksf
Google shows once more that they are visionary company with long-term outlook
and an outlook on business that allows them to invest in things that benefit
everybody and not just them.

Video on the web is popular hence it's important. It's also the only part of
the web where the de-facto standard (h264) is owned by a commercial entity
which has a grip on the technology not through continuous technological
excellence but by a patent grab.

It's a huge disaster waiting to happen. It has happened in the past (see gif
patent and the money grab that ensued). It's naive to think that mpeg la
consortium is not aware of how much money they could possibly make by starting
to enforce their licensing. And when they do, that will be bad for everyone
creating and publishing video on the web. Web video on the web is currently
living on a good will of commercial entity who might just think of it as
freemium model: make them dependent on your product until they can't use an
alternative and then make them pay.

Google (along with Mozilla) should be commended for spending millions of
dollars to decrease the probability of such a disaster happening. Even if WebM
doesn't surpass h264 it might just be enough insurance to make mpeg la not
start a money grab in fear of loosing completely to WebM.

We need a free standard for video on the web, just like we have them for
everything else, and Google is spending considerable resources to make it
happen.

As to Gruber: he has no credibility asking Google tough questions. His pro-
Apple and anti-Google biases are bigger than iceberg that sank titanic.

More important question is: when will Apple and Microsoft start helping us
avoid future video disaster on the web?

And where is Gruber asking "who is happy about this" when Apple continuously
censors App Store and refuses to allow developer publish apps that users want
to use? When Apple is more interested in their petty vendetta against Adobe
than in what they users want. Etc. If you want to ask tough questions, then
ask them, just not selectively.

~~~
DavidSJ
_As to Gruber: he has no credibility asking Google tough questions._

Why do you need credibility to ask questions?

~~~
krakensden
Surely you have had the experience of being in a class or lecture with someone
who used Q&A time to preen or push an obviously inappropriate agenda.

Discourse, like everything social, requires a certain amount of good faith, or
it stops being useful.

~~~
bradleyland
What part of his line of questions would you deem "obviously inappropriate" or
lacking "good faith"?

I can understand Google wanting to push open standards, but there are some
very glaring hypocrisies on display here. Everyone questions Apple's agenda
when they leave Flash out of iOS, but somehow Google gets a pass?

Gruber is biased? Heh.

~~~
drivebyacct2
Google isn't keeping anyone from writing an H.264 plugin for Chrome, they're
choosing not to support it. Apple has the luxury of those being the same thing
(not supporting = not allowing) on iOS.

Are you implying that Gruber isn't biased? It's really neither here nor there,
but I've been on HN enough to simply see the headlines with (daringfireball)
next to it to roll my eyes at that notion.

(Note, I think John brings up some great questions. I think almost all the
complaints about WebM, voiced here on HN, are ignorant of browser
compatibility and Flash's support for WebM (though I still think the hardware
decoding points that have been brought up are very valid), but the questions
of timing and consistency across Google's product intrigue me)

~~~
bradleyland
If it's implied it's not intentional. I'll state forthright that Gruber's bias
is worn on his sleeve. You'd have to be a fool to argue otherwise. But even
someone with bias can ask straight forward questions. While Google and Apple
may be engaged in some perceived "battle to the death", it doesn't mean that
someone with an Apple bias can't ask valid questions about Google's decisions.

The OP accused Gruber of having an inappropriate agenda and not acting in good
faith. I didn't read that between the lines in Gruber's post, so I'm curious
why he/she did.

------
pyrmont
tldr: The simple answer to John's questions is that sometimes, when you act in
the real world, in order to achieve things you have to make compromises and
cannot be ideologically pure.

In more detail:

1\. Because, like it or not, Flash is an established part of the web at
present and it would be unacceptably frustrating for users if numerous
websites stopped working. This would be the result because these sites often
do not have a fallback option for users who are not using Flash. On the other
hand, sites which only serve h.264 content with no fallback option are rare
(non-existent?).

2\. I, too, am interested in the answer to this question but not because I'm
trying to prove that Google isn't ideologically pure.

3\. I don't see how it wouldn't be better for open innovation if YouTube
served video in an open format. Perhaps what John is really getting at is what
does YouTube intend to do for platforms that will not support Flash or WebM?

4\. Why isn't it valid to have Flash as a fallback option? This is only
invalid if you work from the assumption that Flash is unacceptable (either
because of performance or for ideological reasons). Utilising a ubiquitous
closed technology while you help establish a new open technology is not an
ideologically pure strategy but it may be one that will work.

5\. People who are concerned about video codecs being controlled by for-profit
corporations are happy about this but I don't think that's most people. I also
don't think those same most people care.

I think John's frustration is really with Google wanting to make decisions on
the basis of ideology (open is good/don't be evil) only when it is in Google's
financial interest to do so (John has given examples in the past that open
doesn't seem so good when it comes to Google's proprietary search algorithm).
I think this is a fair frustration to have but it doesn't mean that everything
that Google does is irrevocably tainted and can never be good. Establishing an
open standard for video on the web is a good thing long-term. The way they are
going about it isn't as pure as one might hope but sometimes this is how
things work in the real world (see Obama and tax cuts/repeal of Don't Ask,
Don't Tell).

~~~
kenjackson
_Establishing an open standard for video on the web is a good thing long-
term._

Why is that a good thing? It's not a bad thing, but is it worth a lot of
churn? Virtually none of the media formats in wide use today are open, yet it
hasn't really been a problem, from Flash to MP3 to MPEG-2 to even WMA/WMV. The
ability for users to transcode is virtually limitless. I don't have a single
media file that I can't get to any other format.

I don't think this is about the long-term good of the web. I think it's about
the long-term good for Google.

~~~
pyrmont
It's long-term good in the sense that it means your freedom to produce video
that other people can play back is no longer at the convenience of others.

At present, you can do most of the things you do because the people that
control the intellectual property rights are allowing you to do that at a
minimal or no cost. As the GIF example demonstrates, it's not always wise to
rely the charity of for-profit companies when it comes to this type of thing.

What are the chances of this being a problem in the future? I don't know. I
believe it's good long-term in the same way that I believe insurance is good
long-term. Taking out insurance doesn't always pay off -- in fact most of the
time you'd hope it doesn't -- but that doesn't mean it's not a good thing to
do.

This is to Google's benefit and, as I said in my original comment, I believe
this is at the heart of John's problem with Google. Google positions its
actions within a moral framework that never mentions that the actions which it
takes are of financial benefit to Google. I don't disagree that Google is
doing that and that it's frustrating -- only that basically every company does
it.

Take for example, Apple. Apple only lets users download apps through the App
Store. This is good for users because it means that users can trust the
software and developers can easily charge for software and make a living from
it. But Apple also does it because it's good for Apple. They make money this
way on software that's sold and they can also limit apps which would otherwise
compete with their own software.

Does the fact they have an ulterior motives mean that it's not good for users?
I'd say no. John says no, too. Well at least he does when it's Apple. When
it's Google, he seems upset by the dishonesty. I don't mind if John wants to
be upset with dishonesty but I think you should make it clear why you're not
upset at Apple's similar dishonesty (the reason might be because Apple doesn't
frame what they do in such moral terms as Google).

~~~
kenjackson
You do realize you're basically arguing FUD.

Let me throw some FUD your way... equally likely (or unlikely). WebM does
violate a patent in the MPEG-LA pool. At that point Google needs to rev every
instance of WebM, from browser to every video encoded with WebM. MPEG-LA could
go after anyone who encoded a video with WebM. And given MPEG-LA's patent pool
size (which includes H264, VC-1, MPEG-2, etc...).

In contrast for H264 to violate it patent it would have to violate something
not in the patent pool, and something not held by a licensor, e.g., WMV or
Quicktime (as these would in good faith be in the patent pool). That list is
LOT smaller. Most people think that they likely own al

And note, Google does NOT offer indemnification. If they did, and they should,
that would change the equation on this FUD a fair bit.

~~~
nitrogen
Who offers indemnification against unexpected patent threats in their codec
licenses? Expecting Google to indemnify WebM users or MPEG-LA to indemnify
H264 users are equally ridiculous. It's uncountable downside with very little
upside.

------
hristov
Ok here, are some answers, off the top of my head. They are not Google's
answers, but what I imagine Google would say if they felt like being honest.

1\. No Flash wont be dropped. Why must we be forced to the extreme absolutist
position in one direction or another? We try to do what is right, but we are
also practical, and will not attempt things that will cause too much trouble
for their benefit. It is always easier to affect the path of technology in its
infancy than after it has been established. Flash is established; we will not
try to fight it and will let it die a natural death. HTML 5 video is in its
infancy and we will try our best to guide it in the right direction.

2\. We will probably leave that up to the manufacturers. However, once the
WebM hardware accelerators start shipping, we expect h.264 support to drop
because no manufacturer likes to pay per phone licensing fees.

3\. Youtube will still retain h.264 support to allow compatibility with iOS
devices, until iOS devices start supporting WebM.

4\. They will have some time to think about it. First we are not dropping
h.264 support immediately. Even after we drop support, they can still use
flash to support their h.264 video (as most of them already do) so they do not
lose anything. But we are making it clear that we are throwing our weight
behind WebM, and they will eventually figure out that they are paying h.264
license fees for no good reason.

5\. We are. Lots of people on the web are. Many people that have to write
checks to MPEG-LA are. Many people that are thinking of doing a video startup
but are worried about the licensing costs are.

------
CyberMonk
I'm surprised Gruber didn't also pose a question about the murky patent
landscape re: WebM. If Google decides to throw their full weight behind WebM,
it wouldn't be at all surprising to see some legal action on the part of MPEG-
LA.

That said, the "Who is happy about this?" question smacks as slightly unfair
given Gruber's unabashed approval of Apple's decision to not support Flash
(albeit, I too support this decision as a web developer).

Addendum: whereby I mean to say that there are undoubtedly numerous users who
have been "harmed" (whether they know it or not) by the lack of Flash on iOS
devices (e.g., because they could not view a given website on their device),
even if the removal of Flash will be good for the web in the long term.

~~~
danilocampos
> That said, the "Who is happy about this?" question smacks as slightly unfair
> given Gruber's unabashed approval of Apple's decision to not support Flash
> (albeit, I too support this decision as a web developer).

The "Who is happy" test for Flash passes, though. I, for one, have desperately
yearned for the death of Flash for years before Apple partisans took up the
mantle. Why? I was partly responsible for maintenance and analytics of a
_terrible flash website that, superficially, looked kind of neat_. All you
have to do is have this trash plugged into something mission critical to start
wishing for its demise.

And I'm not alone. Flash is a crappy, frustratingly ubiquitous technology
whose marginalization is a godsend for _anyone who cares about a usable web._
Anyone who has ever tried to use a restaurant website is happy about the end
of flash.

~~~
kjksf
Sure, if the only opinion that matters is yours.

For one, millions of people play Flash games. They would not be happy if Flash
was gone.

For a long time Flash was the best way to deliver video on the web. People who
watched those videos would not be happy if Flash was gone.

Flash succeeded on the web based on merits, despite being in a relatively
hostile environment (as every plugin is by the virtue of not being bundled
with a browser and needing a separate action to install it).

The fact that it became ubiquitous is evidence that most people wanted it to
have hence would be not happy if they didn't get it.

Your position on flash is valid as a personal opinion but you're wrong that
Apple's decision to not support Flash passes "happy" test for their customers
and users. It's just one more example of Apple's doing what Apple wants, users
be damned; of arrogance born out of success.

~~~
danilocampos
"Who would be happy?" != "Would a majority be happy?"

I didn't assert everyone would be over the moon with Flash gone. I'm saying
that you don't have to look hard for people who would be. Killing H.264, a
popular format, in a growing browser is much more of a headscratcher.

>Apple's doing what Apple wants, users be damned; of arrogance born out of
success.

I think you've got that mixed up. Apple's success is a function of its
arrogance. Every smash hit they've had came from arrogance, whether you pick
the iMac, with its embrace of USB, to iTunes, with its crazy, user-friendly
licensing, or the iPod, with its paltry storage space and simplistic UI, or
the iPhone, with its lack of a keyboard or stylus... etc.

Apple's success comes from having the balls to say "Fuck you guys, we're doing
it this way, because it's better." As usual, they got it right with Flash. And
history has shown that in the end, users were at the very center of those
decisions, even if the consequences were initially unfamiliar.

~~~
statictype
_Killing H.264, a popular format, in a growing browser is much more of a
headscratcher._

H.264 is not open. WebM is. WebM also has the technical quality to rival H.264
(which Theora does not) Certainly there are downsides to this decision but
doesn't seem like a total headscratcher to me.

 _And history has shown that in the end, users were at the very center of
those decisions, even if the consequences were initially unfamiliar._

You realize you could say the exact same thing about Google's decision now?

~~~
lukifer
Has mp3 not being "open" prevented people from making, listening to, and
sharing music? Have Linux MP3 players been erased from the face of the earth
by evil patent trolls?

I'm aware that the software world, and FOSS in particular, frequently bumps
heads with this patent nonsense. But throwing existing technical solutions out
the window to deal with a broken legal/economic complex seems backwards.

(There are parallels that could be drawn to Apple's blocking of Flash, but
that arguably has as much to do with quality as openness/control. Flash's
performance and stability is contentious at best. H264, on the other hand, is
typically regarded as a best-of-breed codec.)

~~~
ZeroGravitas
Just as an interesting datapoint, SanDisk (the number two "mp3" player
manufacturer the last time I checked) has dropped AAC support from some of
their recent models, while still supporting free formats like Vorbis and FLAC,
as well patented ones like as mp3 and WMA. Obviously the fees can have an
impact even on big names.

------
antimatter15
Most people install flash anyway, regardless of whether or not it's
preinstalled. Ideally, everyone could just kill flash and that would be
awesome, but a huge amount of content is already made in flash and there are a
few areas where standards are not implemented consistently or at all (eg. the
Device API for accessing webcams and microphones, though a version of Android
does support that and the ConnectionPeer interface for peer-to-peer
connections). Flash isn't used exclusively for video.

When it's 2028 and all the h.264 patents finally expire, it would be great if
Google were to add h.264 back to the chrome browser, but of course, the
browser landscape would probably be so vastly different that it would be
hardly relevant.

YouTube _is_ reencoding the videos in WebM. But it's doubtful that the h.264
videos will be removed because of Apple's stubbornness in only supporting a
single format (However, I'm quite sure Safari plays whatever videos are
supported by the pluggable QuickTime engine, so once someone makes a QT plugin
that adds WebM, it'll play in Safari. The same way IE9 implements video
codecs).

Gruber only lists 4 or so companies that use H.264 with <video>. There
probably aren't too many more that exclusively use h.264 with <video>.
Certainly far less than the number of people who use flash video.

------
guelo
Once you get past the PR and spin I think this is just another strategic move
in the battle between these corporate giants. Remember that Google re-encoded
all of Youtube to mp4 so that it could be shown on the iPhone, they were
partners, but then Jobs got mad and started a war by suing HTC over Android. I
believe Apple was dumb in starting this war because they have a lot more to
lose than Google, if the iProducts lose Google's
YouTube/Maps/Gmail/Search/Voice/Goggles, etc it would put them at a big
disadvantage. Consumers will be collateral damage as this battle continues to
escalate.

------
metachris
_> will Flash Player support be dropped as well? If not, why?_

Flash has no easy replacement available yet. We will see with HTML5 and
beyond. Realistically it will take a few more years.

 _> Android currently supports H.264. Will this support be removed from
Android? If not, why not?_

My guess is that future Nexus phones will have hardware WebM decoding
included. I don't know if Google will remove H.264 anytime soon though.

 _> YouTube uses H.264 to encode video. Presumably, YouTube will be re-
encoding its entire library using WebM. When this happens, will YouTube’s
support for H.264 be dropped, to “enable open innovation”? If not, why not?_

It will be dropped. Why not?

 _> Do you expect companies like Netflix, Amazon, Vimeo, Major League
Baseball, and anyone else who currently streams H.264 to dual-encode all of
their video using WebM?_

Sure. They all have enough money for a few gigs per movie, the distribution
system would stay the same. Btw. Netflix uses Silverlight and adding WebM
decoding to Silverlight should be rather easy.

 _> Who is happy about this?_

Given the counter-scenario and a few years: everyone!

------
albertzeyer
> Who is happy about this?

In the very long term: everybody.

~~~
svlla
I take it you are a Flash supporter? Because Flash plays H.264, and Google
ships Chrome with Flash. So Google Chrome has not lost the ability to play
H.264, it just does so through Flash now. If Google were to stop shipping
Chrome with Flash that would be saying something.

~~~
blocke
Saying what? We hate our users?

Do you understand what Google has done with "Flash"?

Since 99% of their users WILL have Flash installed anyway Google decided they
would make sure their users would have the most up to date version without the
user being involved at all. No other browser does that.

In Chrome 9 the Flash plugin is sandboxed.

Google's moves are 100% pragmatic.

Why the hell is there so much support for a software patent cartel among
Hacker News members? I thought software patents were a major danger to
startups...

~~~
cdeutsch
Do you encode video for the web? Do you know how long it has taken to reach a
point where there is almost a ubiquitous codec? I've been in the business for
10 years. Yesterday may have been the peak of ubiquity.

This is a selfish move by Google to put the screws to Apple. There's no
question it's going to hurt users in the short term because they'll have to
rely on Flash to playback H.264. And users are going to be using Flash a lot
because the people like me who are in the business of encoding and hosting
video will not be switching to WebM anytime soon. The millions of iOS devices
and the higher ups who own them will dictate this for years to come. This is
where your idealism meets reality.

~~~
blocke
So only iOS counts? Because that is the only platform <video> matters on right
now.

I'm glad to see Apple calls the shots and Google is in the wrong for making a
move in its own interest. And in the interest is places that don't want to pay
a software patent cartel for permission to innovate.

~~~
cdeutsch
No, but Apple is the biggest factor. I'm willing to bet more corporate
decision makers have iPhone's than Androids (which also don't support WebM by
the way) and when you're selling a video hosting and asset management service
that matters.

These are the other extremely popular devices that support H.264 and most will
not be supporting WebM anytime soon so why would I encode in WebM until they
do.

Android devices.

Sony PSP.

Sony Playstation 3.

Xbox 360.

Blackberrys.

Some Symbian Phones.

Windows Phone 7.

I'll jump on the WebM bandwagon as soon as more then 50% of the popular
consumer devices support it. Taking away support for an established and
popular codec just makes you an asshole and will be nothing more then an
inconvenience as long as Flash player supports it and is included with Chrome.

~~~
blocke
It'll be one of those things where time will tell.

I have sympathy for those involved in encoding but one has to remember that
disruptive technologies are called disruptive for a reason. If WebM takes off
its going to cause someone pain during the process... :)

Since you edited I'll edit too:

Which of those devices will still be around and usable in 5 years? Which ones
won't be replaced by shiny new hardware? Your timeframe is a bit different
than Google's.

------
synxer
Bravo to Google for thinking a few steps ahead.

> In addition to supporting H.264, Chrome currently bundles an embedded
> version of Adobe’s closed source and proprietary Flash Player plugin.

For one, I am a little tired of the hyperbole surrounding Flash. Yes, it isn't
quiet open source, but it's not quiet "closed source", either. Since I can
download an open source Flex SDK and compile without the need of any Adobe
tools. I can't fork the player API, but this rant _seems_ like sensationalism.
Secondly, Flash player handles much more than just video. I'm not saying it is
used in the best way, but it definitely caters beyond video render. Removing
H.264 doesn't have the same impact as removing an embedded Flash player.

------
plinkplonk
trying to imagine what a different post this would be if Apple (instead of
Google) had dropped H.264 for similar reasons.

~~~
ZeroGravitas
Apple fought a bitter, public battle with the MPEG-LA over MPEG 4 part 2 video
and the crazy licence fees they were planning to charge for it (and AAC) a
good few years back. They refused to release Quicktime 6 until the licence fee
structure was changed to allow more cost free usage. Not out of the goodness
of their hearts, but because uneconomical fees could (and did) open the door
to competitors like VP6 which, via Flash, become the dominant web format for a
while. Could have been pre-Daring Fireball though. (edit: I checked, the
argument was summer 2002, DF started that fall).

------
brg
A question missed is the following; The dropping of H.264 seems more motivated
by their acquisition of On2 and their VP8 codec than it does about the
licensing terms of H.264. Who within Google pushed for this, and to what
extent was the need to show a realization from On2's acquisition a factor?

------
rosejn
Seriously, why does anyone care what this Apple fanboy thinks?

------
retrogradeorbit
5\. I am.

------
yanw
I'm not Google but I'll give it a go:

1\. No, Flash isn't just about video playback, the technology is used in a
variety of ways on a variety of sites and it's not analogouse to a video
codec.

2 - 4. Transitioning the web to WebM encoded video is the ultimate goal but
that will have to happen gradually.

5\. Adobe, initially. FSF as well

~~~
svlla
1\. google _ships_ chrome with flash, which is not necessary.

2-4. not going to happen since WebM is not as good as h.264 and probably still
has patent problems (see: <http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/archives/377>)

5\. adobe only. this just forces people to to use flash.

~~~
jbri
You know, Flash. A browser plugin that allows execution of SWF objects. Which
is an open, non-patent-encumbered format.

~~~
danudey
And which, to my knowledge, you cannot remove.

Edit: You can disable it.

------
snissn
I never realized gruber reminded me of glenn beck until now

