

Firefox will support H264 and MP3 decoding with OS codecs - gcp
http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.dev.platform/browse_thread/thread/fb14de8b9ad84e15#

======
sho_hn
From the article:

"There is really no justification to stop our users from using system decoders
already on the device"

Mozilla just spent two years telling everyone that they were not going to do
this, and posting justifications as for why not. To me this is a serious blow
to their credibility.

Examples:

[http://robert.ocallahan.org/2009/06/directshow-and-
platform-...](http://robert.ocallahan.org/2009/06/directshow-and-platform-
media_23.html)

[http://robert.ocallahan.org/2010/01/video-freedom-and-
mozill...](http://robert.ocallahan.org/2010/01/video-freedom-and-
mozilla_23.html) ("Mozilla should pick up and use H.264 codecs that are
already installed on the user's system.")

~~~
gcp
_Mozilla just spent two years telling everyone that they were not going to do
this, and posting justifications as for why not. To me this is a serious blow
to their credibility._

They fought 2 years for getting patent-free video recognized, probably at the
cost of some of their userbase, and a lot of anger from web-developers who saw
their lives complicated.

Today, they seem to be reconsidering their position because they think it's a
lost fight.

How is this a blow to their credibility? What should they have done? Instantly
bend over next time? Stubbornly refuse to reconsider and lose the best hope
for a truly free phone OS because nobody would want to use it?

If you lose a war, it's never pretty. Kudos to Mozilla for taking a hard
stance against patented standards for as long as they could. They deserve
credit for that.

~~~
sho_hn
> How is this a blow to their credibility?

Because he's not saying "we tried, but it didn't work out in the end". He's
saying there is no justification not to use available platform decoders. Yet
they were not shy to provide them in the past. He's not addressing why those
are no longer relevant arguments.

Obviously the real reason they're doing this now is because on their new
mobile platform, the Gecko runtime is all there is, and without it supporting
H.264 playback, the platform would be considered incomplete at launch more so
than their desktop browser is for not supporting it. I get the motivation. I'm
not saying it's wrong - I don't agree with it, but that's not the point here.
The point is how bad it makes Mozilla look to change their stance so willy-
nilly.

~~~
gcp
_Yet they were not shy to provide them in the past._

The reasons are still there - it's even pointed out in the parent discussion
that they're still a problem on Windows. One main difference is that Windows 7
is an order of magnitude more widespread now than it was 2 years ago - when
those posts you refer to were written.

And as you already admitted - they're doing this on mobile first. There's no
guarantee yet it turns out to be actually feasible on desktop _if those same
arguments can't be properly addressed_.

~~~
sho_hn
But the Windows problems aren't the only justifications they published back
then. In the second linked post O'Callahan writes:

"It pushes the software freedom issues from the browser (where we have
leverage to possibly change the codec situation) to the platform (where there
is no such leverage). You still can't have a completely free software Web
client stack."

Given that it strikes me as ironic that Mozilla is now building a platform -
i.e. a platform where they definitely have leverage - that is going to support
H.264.

~~~
gcp
They're giving the mostly-dead WebM the coup de grace in order to give the
newborn B2G a chance to succeed.

That isn't irony. It's at worst pragmatism, and at best not being stupid to
continue a lost fight.

------
paulrouget
No. There is no plan to support H264.

Seriously - there is not decision been taken here. This is just a discussion
about gecko on Android, and the implication for Desktop.

Saying "Firefox will support H264 and MP3 decoding with OS codecs" is just
speculation.

Edit: to be clear: I am saying that there's no plan to support H264 on
_Firefox Desktop_.

~~~
gcp
_Saying "Firefox will support H264 and MP3 decoding with OS codecs" is just
speculation._

Quoting directly from the link:

 _Initially this will be enabled on Gonk (B2G). In a few weeks we will add
support for Android as well. We will support encoding any video/audio format
that is supported by existing decoders present on the system, including H.264
and MP3._

Of course it's possible that the bug doesn't land. But calling this
speculation? Please.

~~~
paulrouget
I was talking about Firefox Desktop.

~~~
gcp
It would be an interesting position for Mozilla to take, to capitulate on this
issue on Mozilla's very own platform (B2G) and the fastest growing mobile
platform Mozilla is currently active on (Android), yet not do so on the
platform where the largest current userbase lies.

I do not see what benefits it could have.

~~~
paulrouget
I agree. Kinda of an uncomfortable position here. Let's see how this evolves.

------
avar
So they're now just using OS codecs which is exactly what they refused to do
when they made a big fuss about H264 patents a while back?

~~~
gcp
To me this looks like a capitulation, probably brought on by the following
factors:

* Chrome was supposed to drop H264 support a >1 year ago in favor of WebM. It never happened.

* The spread of H264 video wasn't slowed down by Mozilla's stance.

* Firefox users were effectively forced to install Flash (a far more closed solution) to view videos.

* The split in HTML5 video support (Firefox and Opera being the lone holdouts with no H264 support) weakened HTML5 compared to alternatives.

* Flash is going away on Mobile devices, which mean that Firefox Mobile users had no way to view videos. This is why it's going into B2G + Android first.

~~~
cheatercheater
You don't remember what the original argumentation was. Firefox is free,
Mozilla can't afford the patent licensing, that's all. If you own a h.264
license and want to use it with your software, feel free. By buying a phone or
windows 7 you get the license to use a h.264 codec. Microsoft already brought
support to Firefox (
[http://www.osnews.com/story/24137/Microsoft_Brings_H264_to_F...](http://www.osnews.com/story/24137/Microsoft_Brings_H264_to_Firefox_on_Windows_7)
), now it's happening on Android. It's one thing to promote open standards -
that's great and Firefox is doing that with WebM - but it's another thing to
completely disregard existing capabilities and put the user back in the stone
age of the internet.

~~~
w0utert
> You don't remember what the original argumentation was. Firefox is free,
> Mozilla can't afford the patent licensing, that's all.

IIRC, there were other reasons not to support using the OS codecs. H264
license fees are not an issue when you just use the codecs the OS provides, as
they are already covered by the OS or codec vendor. With all the Google
millions that Firefox gets each year, the license fee should not really be a
problem anyway.

What I understand from it, is that it would take a lot of effort to use system
codecs for different video formats, while still providing the complete set of
HTML5 video functions for every format.

I never really bought this argument since IE, Safari and Chrome appear to
handle this just fine, if you have Perian installed for example, you can even
play HTML5 WebM directly from Safari. So I think we can safely conclude there
were no other arguments for Mozilla's decision not to support H264 through
system codecs, besides ideological ones.

Personally, I think this is great news. Everyone should just stop complaining
about the supposed H264 patent issues, standardize on it, and move on. The
patents have never been a problem and they never will, you only need to pay
license fees if you make money off of H264, in which case you should just pay
up, technology like this doesn't fall from trees. The moment WebM/VP8 would
gain any traction at all on the internet, it would prove to be a patent
minefield just like H264, as you simply cannot make a modern video codec
without violating any patents these days.

~~~
fpgeek
Even if you accept the MPEG-LA's assurances that there are no practical issues
with H.264 decoders (and it is worth noting that the terms for decoders almost
certainly wouldn't be as generous as they currently are without the pressure
created by WebM), that was never the fundamental problem.

The real issue with the H.264 patents and why it is anathema to any libre
ecosystem is the impact of the H.264 patents on video creation, encoding and
distribution. Here's a thorough discussion of the issues (created by someone
who actually took a substantial amount of time to talk to a representative of
the MPEG-LA for clarification):

[http://www.librevideo.org/blog/2010/06/14/mpeg-la-answers-
so...](http://www.librevideo.org/blog/2010/06/14/mpeg-la-answers-some-
questions-about-avch-264-licensing/)

To me, this is a key conclusion:

"Related to point #2, it may not be possible to release an H.264-encoded video
under, for example, a Creative Commons license that allows commercial usage.
More precisely, should you release your H.264-encoded content under such a
license, it would not be legally usable under such a license. This cuts out a
large portion of options related to how you may share your creative content."

I find the idea that we should standardize on a video codec with that sort of
usage restriction completely incomprehensible. I just do not understand how
people can accept a data format whose licensing doesn't just constrain people
who produce encoders, decoders and other related tools and technology, but
also constrains end users.

------
AndrewDucker
Just to be clear - this is on Android, at least to start with. Whether it gets
opened up to work with Windows later is an open question.

------
Fice
This will surely help MPEG LA make their encumbered codec a standard for
publishing video on the web. I would rather use a browser that does not
support non-free codecs.

~~~
pwthornton
Is there a remotely modern video codec that isn't encumbered? Just because it
is offered up as free software or open source doesn't mean that someone else's
patent doesn't already cover it.

I have no faith that WebM is non-encumbered. The real issue is our patent
system, not codecs.

~~~
Fice
The patent system is so that almost every non-trivial software can be
considered encumbered. Yet the chances of being sued successfully are
different. Why will MPEG LA need to push their codec if they could profit from
selling patent licenses to WebM users?

I suspect that the real motivation of the H.264 supporters is that the patent
encumbered codec will allow content providers and proprietary software vendors
to control who is allowed to produce video playback software (at least, they
could make it impossible for free software to support the codec), and impose
mandatory content protection. That will make the content industry giants
closer to their ultimate goal of eliminating all the culture they do not
control.

------
ZeroGravitas
If they're going to do this, they should still not support AAC in html5 audio
tags, even if they support it in video tags when bundled with H.264.

With MP3 and Vorbis (with Opus a potential new entrant) you already have wide
compatibility (everyone that supports AAC supports mp3 too) and top quality
covered and mp3 patents expire a lot sooner than AAC. Ubuntu also has a free
(as in beer) mp3 decoder available.

I'm all for pragmatism, but there's still utility and principle in avoiding
unnecessary reliance on patented codecs where possible.

------
chrisfarms
> For the desktop, this could be problematic. While Windows 7 does provide
> access to an already installed and licensed h.264 codec, Windows XP does
> not. If we simply enable system codecs where available, how will Web
> developers know when they can and cannot count on system codecs?

Isn't the whole point of the <source> tag to solve this very issue?

~~~
fpgeek
<source> lets you serve different formats of the same audio/video object to
accommodate the different formats your users may need. However, <source>
doesn't do anything to help you figure out which formats you need to serve to
cover your user base, which is the problem being referenced here, I believe.

~~~
gcp
In theory (only) this doesn't help web designers much, as they still need to
keep supporting the same formats.

In practice, web designers already seem to use H264 exclusively, so at the
very least Firefox users won't have to install Flash to see videos.

~~~
fpgeek
Ironically, I've been pretty happy that Firefox on Android has been raising a
video-viewing Intent, since I like the option to use one of my locally-
installed video players. I hope they'll keep an option to do that even after
they've integrated support for system codecs.

------
pkmays
I wonder how hostile people will be once the H.264 patents expire. (Remember
GIF hate?) It will happen within most of our lifetimes.

~~~
Scaevolus
They won't all expire until around the end of 2017, according to this:
<http://www.tunequest.org/a-big-list-of-mp3-patents/20070226/>

~~~
magicalist
wait, did the grandparent originally say something about MP3?

h264's last patent will expire in november 2027 (or september 2028, but I
think there's some technicality that makes that one not count) according to
[http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/MPEG_patent_lists#H.264_pat...](http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/MPEG_patent_lists#H.264_patents)

That's a really long time from now.

------
Aissen
2 years ago, while working at a SoC vendor, they were explicitely taking into
account WebM support for their next generations of chips: not having hardware
decoding for a major web codec would be a great failure: with Google + Mozilla
+ Opera we could see almost 1 billion users affected by this. This is a make
or break to have design wins.

A SoC lifecycle can take 5 years to materialize in customer shipping hardware.
Yet Mozilla is giving up before collecting the fruit of their previous policy
(no system codec).

That's a shame.

~~~
gcp
What good is WebM support in the SoC, or what effect does it have, if there is
zero content out there using it anyway? If WebM video would be popular by
_any_ measure, this wouldn't have happened.

Note that there _are_ SoC already out there that support VP8/WebM. As far as I
know Tegra 2 is one of them. What does it change? Nothing. All those chips
support H264 as well. So H264 is what content producers use.

~~~
Aissen
There _is_ content. Youtube has started pushing html5+webm videos to modern
webrowsers without flash installed. This includes Android 4.0+.

------
Stratego
A lovely way to admit being wrong while still remaining slightly user-hostile.

~~~
icebraining
Wrong in what?

~~~
Joeboy
Wrong about thinking they could do the right thing and get away with it?

------
tacokakos
Stratego > So true :)

