
Google, H.264 and Video on the Web - KuraFire
http://farukat.es/journal/2011/01/488-google-h264-and-video-web
======
haberman
> If you charge your visitors for the videos, you’ll have to pay royalty
> fines, but if you offer the video for free you won’t have to worry about
> that, ever. _Ever?_ Yes, ever.

The "Yes, ever." link points to to
[http://www.mpegla.com/Lists/MPEG%20LA%20News%20List/Attachme...](http://www.mpegla.com/Lists/MPEG%20LA%20News%20List/Attachments/226/n-10-02-02.pdf)
, which says (emphasis mine):

"MPEG LA announced today that its AVC Patent Portfolio License will continue
not to charge royalties for Internet Video that is free to end users (known as
Internet Broadcast AVC Video) _during the next License term from January 1,
2011 to December 31, 2015._ "

I don't see how "until the end of 2015" means "forever." It's also not clear
whether this covers free software or just content publishers.

In other words, it looks exactly like the prelude to another GIF bait-and-
switch.

~~~
KuraFire
There is a separate statement somewhere released by MPEG LA that extended that
particular policy to “forever”, explicitly stating it would thus exceed the
previous deadline of December 31, 2015. That applies only the two conditions
outlined in the article _combined_ though.

------
jasonlotito
> "Their stated reason is for the sake of “openness” on the web, but that’s a
> ridiculous claim because they embed the not-open-at-all Flash player inside
> the browser, and will continue to do so."

Adobe Flash. Not Google Flash. Google isn't putting resources into making
Flash for Chrome. Adobe is. Google is simply stating that they won't put
resources into H.264. This doesn't mean you can't have plugins for Chrome that
do this. Just that Google isn't going to do this.

The same reasoning you provide for Google supporting H.264 can be applied to
Apple and Microsoft as well for supporting WebM and Theora.

~~~
grayrest
I've always been under the impression that the reason Flash is embedded in
Chrome was for security reasons (faster time to patch+auto patch) and not
ideology ones.

All the outcry over this I've read is basically a complaint that you can't
ship one codec for HTML5 video, which you've never been able to do. That's
what the whole argument over the video tag has always been about. The only
difference this makes is that this cements the split instead of everybody
expecting Firefox and Opera to give up and adopt H.264. If you were willing to
ship just H.264 and flash fallback for Firefox/Opera, why wouldn't you be
willing to ship H.264 and flash fallback for Chrome?

~~~
jasonlotito
> why wouldn't you be willing to ship H.264 and flash fallback for Chrome?

The same people with a problem with this have a problem with Flash, I imagine.
I also imagine a large number of people complaining are Chrome users who think
they know a thing or two about videos online.

Most of the arguments against Google doing this are smug, illogical, and
stupid. Gruber asked a bunch of stupid questions, and a bunch of lemmings
followed along asking about Flash. I'll go so far as to say if you're one of
these people asking about Flash in Chrome, you are ignorant and wrong.

~~~
GHFigs
I'm horrified to have upvoted this by mistake. Your comment is the kind that
makes me glad I've been avoiding HN for the past few weeks.

~~~
jasonlotito
If your horrified by comments, you should stop coming here and seek help.

> Your comment is the kind that makes me glad I've been avoiding HN for the
> past few weeks.

Coincidentally, your comment is the kind that makes me glad you've been
avoiding HN for the past few weeks.

Rather than simply posting insulting comments, you could attempt to
contribute. It takes a bit more work and a bit of intelligence, but I'm sure
you can manage. The net result is a better HN.

~~~
GHFigs
I didn't say I was horrified by the comment, I said I was horrified to have
upvoted it by mistake. I was trying to downvote, and that's all I would have
done. The intent of my comment was not to insult you (it really wasn't) but to
get you to consider your own remarks, which I (perhaps naively) think that
downvoting generally does. Do you think that calling people "a bunch of
lemmings" makes for a better HN?

I've insulted plenty of people here in the past, maybe even you. For that I'm
sorry. But I'm trying to be better than that, and although I don't think it's
in evidence here, I'd like to believe that you are, too.

~~~
jasonlotito
> I didn't say I was horrified by the comment, I said I was horrified to have
> upvoted it by mistake.

Sorry I wasn't specific enough. I actually realized this error after
commenting, and considered editing, but honestly, I felt that it really wasn't
that important, especially since my corrected statement would still make the
same exact point.

> The intent of my comment was not to insult you (it really wasn't) but to get
> you to consider your own remarks, which I (perhaps naively) think that
> downvoting generally does.

No. Down voting isn't for getting people to think. It's for saying "No, this
comment doesn't add anything to the conversation." Disagreeing with the
sentiment is not good for down voting. A comment that you believe doesn't
provide value, however, is.

If your goal is to get someone to think, it's better to communicate that in a
comment.

> Do you think that calling people "a bunch of lemmings" makes for a better
> HN?

Yes, I do think calling lemmings lemmings is useful: that's what they are. You
might disagree, but they are merely asking the same illogical and thoughtless
questions. I feel my description was accurate and precise. Even the "stupid"
remark, I feel, was justified. I actually wondered if a better word could be
found, because I don't like using "stupid," but it's accurate. Gruber's
questions to Google concerning Chrome's H.264 decision are stupid. This is
especially true when you consider Gruber's history of defending Apple's
decisions regarding it's support of Adobe.

> I've insulted plenty of people here in the past, maybe even you. For that
> I'm sorry. But I'm trying to be better than that, and although I don't think
> it's in evidence here, I'd like to believe that you are, too.

It's fairly easy: unless it's obviously not contributing to the discussion,
assume the person is contributing. Even if you disagree. The language might be
direct (or even harsh to some, as I admit "stupid" is), but for the type of
people that visit HN, this is probably just our way of being as clear as
possible. Even you had to comment on the specificity of whether you were
horrified by my comment or the up voting of my comment. A point that is
meaningless when you consider the point of the original comment.

This is, I fear, obvious to others when we place ourselves in social
situations.

Wife:"Do you want to take the trash out for me?" HN Husband: "No." Wife:"Take
out the trash, NOW." HN Husband: "Yes, dear."

I'd much prefer someone clearly state how they feel then use weasel words
constantly.

Consider for a moment my comment prior to this one, where I called out your "I
meant to downvote your comment." Yes, it was harsh, but only because yours was
equally (in my mine) harsh. However, the net result is now a discussion of the
merits of downvoting, language, and the overall improvement of HN. Alone, both
our comments could be considered the worst of the worst of HN commentary. Off-
topic and insulting. However, the result of this commentary is, I believe, a
worthwhile discussion on comments.

Basically, could I have used something besides "a bunch of lemmings"? Sure, I
suppose I could have. However, it made my point easily enough, and expressed
my thoughts accurately.

------
luigi
Good stuff, the most fair coverage I've read on this.

Because there has been no actual withdrawal timetable announced, I wonder if
the Chrome Team is waiting for the moment when it will least hurt their users:
full WebM support in YouTube or something like that.

I think the Chrome team can claim ideological consistency because they only
support closed technologies through plugins. Flash, Quicktime, Java, and PDF
are all supported through plugins. The Chrome team is making the statement
that H.264 doesn't belong on the open web, and that's why they're removing
first class support for it.

~~~
vetinari
Most fair coverage? You must be joking. His opinion "If you don't agree with
me, your view is ideological" is stated 6 times.

I don't see how you can call this article even approaching to be fair.

~~~
KuraFire
I think you should re-read it and read more carefully, this time. All mentions
of ideological are w.r.t. what your considerations are for choosing which
video codec to use, and have nothing to do with whether or not you agree with
the piece itself or the opinions stated within.

------
ZeroGravitas
I'd love to see the diagram scaled by global web share, and perhaps with a
fourth colour for those delivered "via Flash". I think you'll get a completely
different feel for what the data is trying to tell you. Of course individual
web developers should scale it for their own web audience before making any
decisions.

(Some other minor notes on the contents of the table: WebM is confirmed for
Firefox 4, due in the next month or so, and you do say the chart reflect a few
months from now. Desktop Safari supports WebM just as much as IE9 except it
already does it and also supports Theora in that same manner, Microsoft have
just been more vocal about their potential support of WebM and nothing else.
I'd drop IE9 to "with user installed codec" for WebM and raise Safari to the
same for WebM and Theora. Finally, IE8 and below aren't going to get WebM
unless some very minor plugins, like ChromeFrame or OpenCodecs, get Flash-like
penetration levels and if you're allowing that then basically anything is
possible. Oh, and does Android support HTML5 video tag H.264 or just Flash
video H.264 via the browser?)

------
butterfi
Nice review of the issue! Personally, I'm not that excited over one browser,
or even two, adding or dropping video support. I develop for a spectrum of
users/browsers and if the technique doesn't work across browsers, I avoid it.
Managing a collection of online video means you want the easiest encoding with
the longest possible shelf life, combined with simple deployment across
platforms.

------
drdaeman
> Their stated reason is for the sake of “openness” on the web, but that’s a
> ridiculous claim because they embed the not-open-at-all Flash player inside
> the browser, and will continue to do so.

I'd not go as far as calling this ridiculous. True, this feels wrong, but it's
a fairly weighted decision - average users would tolerate "old" Flash-based
fallback instead of native HTML5 <video> (most users won't understand the
difference), but wouldn't tolerate lack of ability to play Farmville.

> WebM become the open standard (or codec) for video on the web, but the thing
> is: not right now

Unfortunately, "not right now" means "never". Google is already late with this
decision, but as HTML5 <video> is not _too_ widespread, there's still a
possibility that they'll overturn the situation.

H.264 removal was a bold move, and its short-term consequences would hurt both
users and developers, that's for certain. There are several various
predictions on how the long-term outcome will be, and we could only guess
which one is right.

~~~
KuraFire
> "I'd not go as far as calling this ridiculous. True, this feels wrong, but
> it's a fairly weighted decision - average users would tolerate "old" Flash-
> based fallback instead of native HTML5 <video> (most users won't understand
> the difference), but wouldn't tolerate lack of ability to play Farmville."

I agree that cutting out Flash would have a MUCH bigger detrimental impact on
the user experience than dropping H.264 does; mentioning this was just to
point out that their seemingly altruistic-ideological claims about the
“openness of the Web” were fundamentally fallacious. If openness of the web
was truly so important to them, how do they justify dropping H.264 but not
Flash, which is arguably far more threatening to the "openness of the web"?

> "Unfortunately, "not right now" means "never". Google is already late with
> this decision, but as HTML5 <video> is not too widespread, there's still a
> possibility that they'll overturn the situation."

I don't believe this is really true. WebM, as it stands, will at some point
take off, be put to the test in court trials over patent litigation, probably
come out clean or with a one-time-then-safe-forever settlement, and take over
market share from H.264. This seems almost inevitable to me, simply because
right now H.264 is the de-facto standard but it has nowhere to go under its
current licensing scheme. It's not compatible with the web as it is today. So
the only thing that would keep WebM from taking off is MPEG LA changing H.264
to be "web compatible" i.e. royalty-free for use on the Web. But if they do
that, then there's no real need for WebM to take over, either.

------
Hadamard
History tends to repeat itself. What will happen when MPEG-LA will establish a
WebM Pool of Patents as they did with VC-1, making sure EVERYBODY knows the
royalties for WebM will be at least as high as for H.264 FOR LICENSEES. For
users infringing H.264 patents there will be no cap, of course. Google will
never shield any WebM user, just as Micro$oft did not with VC-1. And mind you,
WebM includes obvious (like the Intra mode coding) infringing of H.264
patents.

------
app
Great article. I drew that very chart this morning trying to sort out the
implications of this change.

> "As a side note, it would be great if MPEG LA would simply open up the
> licensing terms for H.264 and make it royalty-free forever for 1: browsers
> to implement it, and 2: people on the Internet to produce & sell video with
> it."

How hard would this be to do? Is that all that prevents FF/Opera/Chrome from
supporting h.264?

~~~
Hadamard
Actually it is far from hard. Most of the MPEG-LA money comes from embedded
devices. Strange enough that GooGuys didn't think enough. The web is - alas -
nothing. All mobile content created today is h.264. Sony, Nokia, Samsung, LG
(Marvell, Quallcomm, Samsung, Nvidia) will not be so quichk to dump H.264.
YouTube of pure WebM? Transcoding all H.264 to WebM? Great - GooFool will have
to pay MPEG-LA just as they pay today!!! Decoder and encode fees are equal to
the price of a full CoDec. Free streaming like YouTube is free anyway. Till
you'll have WebM acceleration for encoding on mobile phones MVC H.264 will
dominate anyway (3D) where WebM isn't even thinking of what should be done. It
seems that the most likely result (instead of saving FireFox, which is losing
share) will be Chrome losing share for Maxthon (100% free with H.264 and
HTML5), IE9 and Safari... Good job Goofools, you have just turned into a Steve
Jobs.

------
kenjackson
Good balanced article.

If I had Google's ear I would tell them that they may think they're at an
inflection point on HTML5 video, but they're too late. There are likley just
two results: (1) They get steamrolled and everyone moves to H264. Or (2)
<video> effectively dies and Flash stays strong (Flash should play both sides
to push this agenda).

Google should instead be working on a great free 3D codec.

~~~
ZeroGravitas
You can watch 3D WebM videos today (with nightly Firefox 4 and nVidia glasses
at least) but I don't think the 3D extensions to Matroska that make this work
have been standardised into WebM so it's maybe just a fluke that it works.

