
Mozilla grudgingly adopts H.264 - devy
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2161879/mozilla-grudgingly-adopts-h264
======
eridius
_Baker said that the firm resisted the move because it wants to build products
that people 'love', and added that using standards that are encumbered by
patents does not support this._

This seems to be a perfect representation of what's wrong with Mozilla's
stance regarding the whole video codec thing (and perhaps, in general). They
conflate "what we think is good for the industry" (i.e. patent-free video
dominating) with "what users love", and don't seem to realize that "what users
love" is _software that works_. If someone using Firefox gets a substandard
video experience to someone using any other browser (e.g. flash player instead
of native video), _that's not something they love_. They don't know why this
happens, all they know is Firefox gives them crappy video and Chrome gives
them nice video.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that being against patent-encumbered video
is a bad thing. I'm just saying their rationalization for this is bad.

~~~
kevingadd
I think you're missing the obvious, frequently mentioned point, that users
don't 'love' paying money for a free web browser. Patent encumbered video
isn't free.

~~~
Me1000
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I'm pretty positive as long as Firefox is
free to users Mozilla won't have to pay for the H.264 license. So in that
sense, it _is_ free...

~~~
0x09
The point is moot. They'll never have to pay money at all since they're only
supporting this by interfacing with platform codecs. If they were shipping an
H.264 decoder themselves it would be a different matter entirely.

------
nchuhoai
Wow ... I really wonder whether this is going to backfire in a couple of years
when H.264 becomes ubiquitous and patent holders start charging

~~~
protomyth
MPEG LA’s AVC License Will Not Charge Royalties for Internet Video that is
Free to End Users through Life of License
[http://www.mpegla.com/Lists/MPEG%20LA%20News%20List/Attachme...](http://www.mpegla.com/Lists/MPEG%20LA%20News%20List/Attachments/231/n-10-08-26.pdf)
[pdf]

~~~
nextparadigms
They'll probably charge for h.265. This is why at least I want WebM to remain
as an alternative and continue to be supported by browsers. It would at least
keep MPEG-LA from ever charging for their codecs.

~~~
protomyth
Well, since h.264 is in the good enough and has been built into a lot of
hardware, I don't think we have much to worry about.

