

The Practical vs. Idealistic Scenarios for the Near-Term Future of Online Video - danilocampos
http://daringfireball.net/2011/01/practical_vs_idealistic

======
Padraig
It's hard to disagree with his analysis of what the practical outcome will be.

Google's not stupid though, so there's either another piece of the puzzle
still to be revealed or Google's aim with this is to throw a spanner in the
works for Apple's various iOS projects. AirPlay comes to mind in particular as
a major feature that would neutralised by reversing the trend towards
standardising on h264.

This is ok. Google can do this if it wants. Just don't dress it up like it's
some selfless contribution to the good of mankind.

------
NickPollard
So let me get this straight.

Apple supporting only h.264 and deliberately not supporting flash in order to
force uptake is a good thing.

Google supporting only WebM and deliberately not supporting h.264 in order to
force uptake is a bad thing.

This doesn't seem to be particularly logically compatible to me. Gruber seems
to imply the first was ok because Apple got their first and it's already
happened, but I'm sure that a lot of people with flash video delivery systems
did not particularly enjoy converting to h.264, but they did it.

Considering Chrome's growing market share, plus Firefox and Opera, content
providers /will/ be forced to offer a compatible video delivery system. If
that has to be flash, so be it.

~~~
CyberMonk
> I'm sure that a lot of people with flash video delivery systems did not
> particularly enjoy converting to h.264

Flash is a wrapper, not a codec, and has in fact supported H.264 encoded video
for some time. A "switch" from Flash to (likely MP4 wrapped) H.264 entails
only removing the Flash wrapper, not a re-encode of the content. Apple not
supporting Flash is not the same thing as Google not supporting H.264 (codec
!= container).

~~~
NickPollard
I know full well that Flash is not a codec; I never implied as such. The point
is, many people served a non-h.264 codec through flash, and so they would not
have just been able to supply the same source video through a <video> tag
rather than through flash.

~~~
ugh
I don’t think Theora and VP8 were widely used before the first browsers gained
support for the <video> tag. Does Chrome support other codecs than those two?

------
dilap
The only way I can see Google exercising _any_ leverage here is by using the
nuclear option and requiring WebM to view YouTube (via <video> or a newer
version of Flash). YouTube is enough of a draw that WebM support would become
more or less universal, via Flash upgrades and (presumably) native support on
Android.

At which point, Apple would find itself pretty lonely on the H264 ice-flow.

Of course, every single mobile device currently in existence would become
collateral damage, since WebM hardware acceleration support doesn't exist yet.
(And hey, who knows how successful, cheap, or easy it will end up being.)

Seems kind of crazy to me, though, just like most of the "we've got to
restrict your freedom to save your freedom" arguments (e.g., the recent GPL
takedown of VLC from the App Store).

But I'm a pragmatist and tend the believe the future plays out in shades of
grey rather than black-and-white, and am to be suspicious of causing certain
harm now to increase the odds of avoiding some Dystopian future (and it's not
like patents last forever!).

~~~
Flenser
They don't have to go nuclear, they just have to serve youtube content in
higher resolutions in WebM than in H.264.

~~~
dilap
That's an interesting idea. I wonder if people care enough about video quality
on YouTube(!) for it to have much of an effect, tho...

~~~
Flenser
They would when YouTube adds paid for content.

------
redthrowaway
I'm an end-user, not a content provider. I don't give a rat's ass _how_ my
video is served, so long as it's pretty and fast. I want my video served in
≥720p with no buffering, as YouTube does currently. To this end, H.264 and
WebM both work fine. In fact, so does flash. The only problem I have with
flash is my laptop gets really hot and my battery drains rapidly every time I
use it for extended periods.

Now, as the average end-user, I don't care about which browser supports which
format. I either use IE or Safari because that's what came with my system, or
Chrome/Firefox because that's what my friend who's good with computers
recommended. I'm not likely to switch browsers because of video issues unless
one just plain doesn't work.

So what does Google's dropping H.264 mean for the consumer and, by extension,
adoption? Not much. The consumer will have to suffer through hot laptops and
short battery life, and most won't know why. As Gruber points out, this will
not encourage providers to support WebM, rather they'll simply keep serving up
flash.

I don't see a winning path, here. From a consumer standpoint, I'm perfectly
happy with H.264. From a web standpoint, I wish we had been having this
discussion 3 years ago. H.264 seems to have won.

~~~
jokermatt999
_The consumer will have to suffer through hot laptops and short battery life,
and most won't know why._

I'll give you this for Safari, but I don't think IE9 will have enough of an
adoption rate to make this a noticeable effect. Average people are unlikely to
switch browsers, and they're also unlikely to upgrade (though I wish I had
some statistics here). They're likely to be using IE6/7/8, without HMTL5
anyway, especially with IE9 not supporting XP.

 _From a web standpoint, I wish we had been having this discussion 3 years
ago. H.264 seems to have won._

Wholeheartedly agreed.

~~~
redthrowaway
Unless I'm missing something, IE9 will be shipping on new laptops, so it
should have pretty wide usage.

------
jamesrom
Grubers apple loving fanboyism aside, he does make a valid point. But I think
he is missing the strategy Google may have in this case.

1) Video sites are not going to re-encode all their video to WebM when the
video still plays on Chrome (through flash). (grubers point)

2) Google will drop Flash video on YouTube if your browser supports WebM. Both
Apple and Adobe are targeted by this move, obviously Apple because they are
H.264 supporters and Adobe because.. well.. Flash.

3) As Flash becomes even less relevant (see previous point) Chrome will stop
shipping with Adobe Flash, instead will require users to download the plugin
like any other browser.

4) Major websites will start embracing HTML5, and with it, re-encode video to
WebM, since it will work by default in most modern browsers (Firefox 4
supports WebM and Microsoft have stated they will support it in IE9 too).

I'm sure Google is thinking something along those lines. Apple is a smart
company so they might have a trick or two themselves. There is nothing
inherently wrong with Apple supporting WebM, except that Apple are probably
sick of having Google products scattered throughout iOS (youtube, gmail and
maps) and this would be another Google (VP8) product they would need to
integrate.

------
cletus
Frankly, of all the stuff I've read about this, Gruber's stuff actually makes
the most compelling points.

Now it seems popular amongst some here to dismiss Gruber as an Apple fanboy or
simply to disagree with him simply because he likes Apple and they don't but
that's a ludicrous position. The only question should be: do his questions
have _merit_?

IMHO they clearly do.

The thing that absolutely _floors_ me about this is that it prolongs the
reliance on Flash, which as Gruber correctly points out, was one of the major
factors behind the <video> tag in HTML5 (to get away from _requiring_
proprietary plugins).

For the foreseeable future, the smart (and IMHO the only) thing for sites to
do is support H.264. To not do so is to potentially alienate hundreds of
millions of users, being those using the iDevices (not the least of which is
the iPod Touch). Sites may choose to dual-encode in WebM but why would you?
Double the processing time and double the storage, for what? A video you can
play without using a Flash wrapper?

People keep pointing to the GIF precedent. That is tantalizingly similar but
it suffers from the same kind of fallacies as comparisons of iOS vs Android to
Apple vs Microsoft (Windows) do: it ignores the fact that the times they have
a-changed.

Consider: I watch an awful lot of video on my iPad. Hardly any of it is in
H.264 format. The solution? A $3-4 app called Air Video that transcodes to
H.264 on the fly.

With the cheapness and abundance of computing power now, let alone 10+ years
from now (which is when the tail end of the H.264 patents are and thus when
the GIF-like profiteering scenario would presumably come to fruition), why do
I care what format _anything_ is in?

If MPEG-LA decided to increase the cost of an H.264 license by 10x for a site
like Youtube I _guarantee_ you that Google could re-encode every video on
Youtube in somewhat reasonable time. And that's _today_.

H.264 is already (perpetually) free for the end user so the it's only the
content providers who really matter in this equation.

Now I'm not arguing we should go completely in with H.264 and to hell with
everything else. I'm all for providing users and sites with choice and for
that reason, I fully support WebM.

What I don't support is removing the choice of H.264 from users or forcing
them to keep using a closed and proprietary plugin (Flash obviously) to watch
them.

The fact that Chrome bundles Flash is _already_ almost enough reason for me to
stop using it. Flash blocker extensions are suboptimal (eg tricks like Flash
overlays on sites that kick off all the Flash). Completely uninstalling it is
not an option (every page asks you "You are missing plugins, would you like to
install them?").

For me this move may just mean I switch back to Firefox.

Lastly, I don't read this as an anti-Apple move at all. It's certainly
political but (IMHO) not aimed at Apple specifically. It's more about the
philosophy of an open Web. I fully support that. I simply question the wisdom
of forcing subpar choices on end users to that end.

Also, some here like to point at Apple and ask "how is this different to Apple
not supporting Flash?"

That one's easy: It was 3 years after the iPhone's release before Adobe had a
full version of Flash that ran on ANY mobile platform (being Android
ultimately). If you accept the assertion that Android Flash is sufficient (and
that is debatable) why exactly is Apple being blamed for Adobe failing to
deliver any kind of sufficient technical solution?

If you want to point the finger at anyone point it at Adobe. If they'd been
serious they would've jailbroken various iDevices and demoed an iOS version of
Flash years ago to make their point, had they had such a thing. The fact that
either they didn't or they chose not to demonstrate it, whichever way it goes,
means they dropped the ball.

Does Apple want Flash? Now? Clearly not and at this point it probably doesn't
matter what Adobe does but years ago? Who knows? But criticizing someone for
not shipping a nonexistent product is crazy.

~~~
magicalist
you seem to be arguing that we should just keep using h264 unless things go
bad, at which point we can always switch; do you not see the problem with
that? even if MPEG-LA licensing fees never change, I'm with Mozilla (and
google) on the fact that ensuring every video producer and provider will be
paying license fees to put their content on the web for the next 17 years is
suboptimal. codec choice is good, but until a royalty-free option is
everywhere, I'd rather them play hardball.

speaking of mozilla, unless you run windows 7 and like microsoft firefox
plugins, switching back to firefox won't do you much good on the h264 front.

~~~
alextgordon
You seem to be arguing that dropping H.264 <video> from Chrome will spur
adoption of WebM. As many have pointed out, including the parent, a more
likely scenario is it will spur adoption of Flash+H.264. Path of least
resistance and all that.

Playing hardball is fine, but you've got to be sure you are actually _playing_
and not merely whacking random spectators in the nuts.

~~~
tintin
I'm not sure this will happen. The only users who are unable to watch WebM are
iPhone/iPad/Safari users. You can use WebM in IE9 (when you install the
codec).

So as a webdeveloper the path of the least resistance for me will be WebM.
You'll get support in Chrome, Firefox, Opera and IE9.

------
fonosip
Googles's motivation is money. also control.

H.264 is not free. and youtube could be reclassified in 2016 to pay a further
royalty increase than the maximum 10%. YouTube is the largest video service
provider in the world.

On the other hand google owns WebM (spent 100M on it)

Also youtube is spending a pretty penny on flash "premium" codec support. Also
not free, and could also potentially save money there pushing WebM.

it is really googles's only way to go

regarding Apple, a simple solution is to add webM support to IOS. they have
some time to do it. will also save them money.

~~~
tuxychandru
Moving to WebM may not save money for Apple. They gain money everytime someone
pays MPEG LA for H.264 as they are one of the licensors. If H.264 loses
widespread adoption Apple loses its share of the fees too.

~~~
pohl
Apple is on both the list of licensors and the list of licensees. In other
words, they own some of the patents in the pool, and they pay to use those
patents in the pool that they do not own. In order for Apple to make a profit
on patent licenses, they would have to either own a majority of patents in the
pool (if all of the patents are of equal weight) or those patents that they do
own would have to have greater weight than all of the patents that are owned
by others.

It's hard to say whether Apple actually gains anything. For all we know, they
might be happy to break even.

~~~
tuxychandru
While I do not know the exact figures, there still is a good possibility for
Apple to gain

They pay for H.264 license to distribute their decoder, but collect royalty
for their patents from every other codec vendor, device maker and commercial
video distributor in the world.

------
jhrobert
So, basically, promoting WebM is actually promoting Flash. Sure. Well put.

And then: so... what?

Am I the only one unsurprised that Google would fight Apple? (in convoluted
ways sometimes)

~~~
CyberMonk
The "what" being that, assuming the ideal is a move away from proprietary
technologies like Flash, supporting WebM alone in the current environment is
likely to have the opposite effect (and thus hurt web open standards, at least
in the short to medium term).

I too liked Chrome's support of both WebM and H.264. Theirs is a disappointing
move.

~~~
andraz
When the world gets into H.264 there's no way back but waiting for 20 years
for patents to expire.

This was the last chance to at least try to keep the web video both open and
free. It's a far shot, but it's at least a try. Before this move, the game
seemed beyond lost, now it is only probably lost.

Flash will support WebM too, Skype is using it, so there are some chances.
It's a very long way off, but now WebM has a fighting chance.

~~~
alanfalcon
Too late. Seriously. The world got into H.264. We're here. It's it. What is
WebM's fighting chance? Did you read the article? Do you have any counter
points to Gruber's thesis? The web will continue to use H.264 and all Google
is doing is ensuring that Chrome users (myself included) just get H.264 video
in a flash wrapper. If we get WebM through Google/YouTube then great, but
nobody else is going to bother serving it to us... why would they?

------
weixiyen
Usually Google brings the big guns to their IO conference. Last year, the WebM
project was announced. This year, some other surprise that will probably make
this discussion irrelevant.

I'd rather spend time guessing on what the big surprise will be this year
regarding web video than debating the effects of Chrome dropping h.264.

The ONLY thing I take from this move by Google is they have intention to take
down h.264, and that in itself is enough to prepare myself for the possibility
of serving 2 formats.

It's just one move in a series of moves Google has been and will be making.

