

Mozilla Plans H.264 Video for Desktop Firefox - glhaynes
http://www.webmonkey.com/2012/10/mozilla-plans-h-264-video-for-desktop-firefox/

======
gmartres
H.264 is not a "proprietary video codec", it's a patent-encumbered codec. The
spec is available for free on the ITU
website(<http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-H.264>) and several open source
implementations exist.

~~~
ramy_d
The spec is useless, even harmful, if 3 years from now MPEG LA decides to
start charging content providers a licensing fee for their content, even if
that content is distributed for free.

If we start using a codec for which the patents are owned by a company, and
that company dictates the licensing terms for that codec, then aren't we
handing control to how the content is distributed to said company?

what do we know about MPEG LA?

~~~
protomyth
[http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/26/mpeg-la-
makes-h-264-video...](http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/26/mpeg-la-
makes-h-264-video-royalty-free-forever-as-long-as-its/)

~~~
JoshTriplett
That says absolutely nothing about h.264 decoder or encoder implementations,
such as the decoders needed in web browsers to handle h.264 in <video> tags;
that just says MPEG-LA won't charge people distributing h.264 video files.

~~~
protomyth
The parent post didn't mention decoders / encoders, it mentioned free content.
These articles[1][2] explain the costs and possible increases[3]. Apple,
Microsoft, and Google have bought the license for their libraries on their
platforms.

[1] [http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/a-closer-look-at-the-costs-
an...](http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/a-closer-look-at-the-costs-and-fine-
print-of-h-264-licenses/2884)

[2] [http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/h-264-patents-how-much-do-
the...](http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/h-264-patents-how-much-do-they-really-
cost/2122)

[3] <http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/FAQ.aspx> last question

------
azakai
> Unfortunately that dream has failed to pan out. Instead of proprietary
> plugins, the web ended up with proprietary video codecs, which has created a
> split in browser support for HTML5 video. Firefox and Opera support the open
> Ogg and WebM codecs, while Safari and Internet Explorer supported H.264.

Funny, it looks like a major browser was left out there (in fact the #1
browser in usage according to some metrics).

The article is pretty good overall, but is missing a key piece that is
important to understand the background.

~~~
mtgx
I blame Google for this, too. They should've made Youtube play on WebM by
default, with a fallback to Flash in browsers that don't support it. That
would've forced the others to adopt WebM.

~~~
Scaevolus
Forcing an inferior codec on users for political reasons is unreasonable.

Have you tried watching 720p WebM compared to 720p H264? The difference is
jarring.

~~~
icebraining
I watched the Amazing Spiderman trailer[1] in 720p in both formats - using
youtube-dl - and I honestly couldn't tell the difference. The webM file is
~16% larger, though.

[1]: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atCfTRMyjGU>

------
andybak
Does anyone have an opinion on whether Google's purchase of On2 makes any
sense now with hindsight?

Did it affect the behaviour of the MPEGLA in any way? I know some of the tech
has fed into WebRTC but that battle is far from over.

Was On2 worth the cash?

~~~
ajross
Google acquired On2 in February of 2010. In August of 2010, the MPEG-LA
"announced that H.264 encoded internet video that is free to end users will
never be charged royalties."
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264/MPEG-4_AVC#Patent_licensi...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264/MPEG-4_AVC#Patent_licensing))

So... yeah, I'd say it profoundly affected the MPEG-LA's behavior. If Google
didn't have an easy out with (what would become) WebM, their Youtube licensing
would be much more expensive.

Whether that patent promise has any bearing on the Mozilla decision is a more
complicated issue. People have strong opinions on both sides.

------
macinjosh
This is great news. There will now be a de facto standard codec for HTML5
video!

~~~
lucian1900
Except it'll be the wrong one, sadly.

~~~
acdha
The wrong choice is Flash.

H.264 vs. WebM is a far more nuanced tradeoff – widespread support and higher-
quality implementations versus [hopefully] freedom from patents. Either way,
the web wins if there's more <video> and less <embed> depending on an opaque
binary blob from a single vendor with a track record of platform neglect.

~~~
lucian1900
Sure, but it could've been so much better, with almost no extra effort.

In the end, we have the worse of two options for absolutely no gain.

~~~
anonymfus
In the end patents will expire. 15 years left.

~~~
wtetzner
And that's one of the biggest problems with software patents. In 15 years,
we'll likely be using a different codec (or, at least I would hope we'd make
some progress in that amount of time).

~~~
protomyth
Probably sooner, H.265 is next on the list
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Efficiency_Video_Coding>
<http://www.h265.net>

------
nitrogen
How do they plan to defend against vulnerabilities in the system codecs?
Especially a GPU-accelerated codec has the potential to wreak all sorts of
nefariousness.

------
J_Darnley
_crosses fingers_ Please use libavcodec! Please use libavcodec! Please use
libavcodec! _reads article and is disappointed_

~~~
ibotty
they will use gstreamer (which won't rule ouy libavcodec).

~~~
av500
gstreamer itself will use libavcodec

~~~
ibotty
that's what i was implying (with my typo). but gstreamer might use something
else as well.

------
andrewkerr
Contrary to the article, h264 is not currently working on Android Firefox
(2012-10-11 release), or at least it doesn't for me.

