
10 Questions for John Gruber Regarding H.264, WebM - DavidAdams
http://www.osnews.com/story/24245/10_Questions_for_John_Gruber_Regarding_H_264_WebM
======
tptacek
First, these aren't 10 questions for John Gruber; it's 5 questions, with one
of them phrased slightly differently 5 times, and another phrased two
different ways.

Second, virtually all of these questions take as an axiom that H.264 is IP-
encumbered and WebM/VP8 isn't. Technical analyses (by people who have actually
implemented H.264 and are familiar with the patents) suggests that that simply
isn't the case. That the author of this article thinks that VP3's release
prior to H.264 might invalidate any part of the H.264 patent pool suggests
that he may not be at all familiar with the patents in play.

Similarly, support for a "known patent troll" isn't germane to the debate if
that patent troll is in the mix one way or the other, which appears to be the
case.

Third, the fact that the H.264 patent pool hasn't been brought to bear on On2
tells us nothing at all about how successful H.264 would be against WebM; it's
not at all unlikely that MPEG-LA sees nothing worth suing in Xiph/On2, and if
that's the case, it is surely a different situation once Google pushes
adoption.

Fourth, an "open pledge of support" for WebM from chip manufacturers is worth
exactly nothing to the people who have spent many many hundreds of millions of
dollars on mobile devices with hardware-accelerated H.264. One can reasonably
argue that those people don't matter, but they can't with a straight face
suggest that a "pledge of support" in any way mitigates the problem.

There's nothing wrong with this post as a contribution to the WebM/H.264
Apple/Google debate. But one gets the sense that the author sees it as some
sort of devastating argument. I'm not sure he realizes that handwaving around
"known patent trolls" and "decades of threats by MPEG-LA" and "is it because
said codec isn't promoted by Apple", he's actually making a fairly weak
sounding argument. He sounds emotional.

I'm gonna go with the analysis of the guy who said his B-frame implementation
gave x264 the project's single greatest encoding quality improvement over the
guy who thinks the release date of VP3 determines which patents encumber VP8,
thanks.

~~~
antimatter15
By "people who have actually implemented h.264 and are familiar with patents",
I assume you mean Jason Garrett-Glaser from his x264dev blog (
<http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/archives/377> ). There aren't any patents
explicitly mentioned, just that vp8 "feels" a lot like h.264. In that post,
there was only one reference to a specific feature, the intra prediction,
which was updated with "Update: spatial intra prediction apparently dates back
to Nokia’s MVC H.26L proposal, from around ~2000. It’s possible that Google
believes that this is sufficient prior art to invalidate existing patents —
which is not at all unreasonable!".

The idea that VP3's prior release making AVC infringing is pretty stupid.

~~~
tptacek
You make a valid point that I should have acknowledged. That said, what I'm
doing is comparing _this_ post, which seems deeply uninformed, to Garret-
Glaser's post, which isn't.

I'm not expert on video patents either. The overarching issue is, this post
seems to think the IP situation with WebM is virtually cut-and-dry, and we
have every reason to believe it isn't.

~~~
lukeschlather
I don't think "it probably infringes software patents in the US" is a
reasonable argument against using a specific piece of software. Aside from the
arguments against the legitimacy of software patents, it's practically
tautological to say that non-trivial software infringes on patents, somewhere.

~~~
evgen
Here's the problem with that line of argument: while it may hold true for
software patents, when it comes to online video one of the fastest growing
categories of end-users are people viewing video on mobile and embedded
devices. These devices use dedicated hardware to decode video without killing
the available power budget. If there is anything behind the claims that WebM
infringes upon MPEG-LA patents then you are not going to see the lawsuits drop
until real devices are shipping with dedicated hardware decoders. Such devices
are easier to nab at borders and by getting an injunction against the
importation of these devices the MPEG-LA would also start the process with an
action that will directly hurt the bottom-line of the alleged infringing
party.

~~~
nkassis
If I understand correctly, the h264 license would protect these device makers
from lawsuits since the devices probably decodes both h264 and WebM. Thus they
already have a license to the patents and the MPEG-LA can't do anything about
them.

------
roc
Maybe I missed it, but I don't recall Gruber taking issue with the webM move,
in and of itself. I read his posts as just being part of his continued
critique of Google's pitching itself and its various business decisions as
"open" and/or "good".

I mean that's been the recurring theme on that site re: corporate Google for
years now. He's not throwing darts when Google does something in their own
best interests. He's throwing darts when Google tries to spin those moves as
being moves made in the interests of users, 'open development', free puppies
and hugs for everyone, etc.

~~~
jarek
Yes and he also takes issue when Apple slightly improves a technology that's
been available for years and markets it as "revolutionary."

Come on. It's marketing. Too many black kettles and pots to count.

edit: second paragraph of parent post has been slightly edited since I posted
this. Originally it only mentioned "open" without users, puppies, and hugs.

~~~
roc
Saying "We're the best" is qualitatively different than saying "We're the good
guys".

~~~
danudey
And outside of poorly-written movies, the 'bad guys' never think they're bad
guys. They always have reasons for what they do, and whether those reasons
make sense to us or not, it's enough for them. Likewise, a lot of 'bad guys'
lie because they think it's in everyone's best interests. For example, telling
the public that there are WMDs in Iraq - it's a lie, but Saddam Hussein is
dangerous so we need to lie to people so they'll support us, because otherwise
they _just won't understand_.

I feel the same way about Google. They spend a lot of their time trying to
convince people they're the good guys, except that, like any corporation,
they're wholly self-serving. I find it less than difficult to imagine them
having reasons that make them feel like the good guys, while those reasons
would make us feel like they're the bad guys.

In this case, they're trying to cram WebM down everyone's throats, supposedly
because it's better for us. They're doing so by removing support for de-facto
standards in their browser, and talking up a lot of rhetoric about free and
open standards, but what they're really doing is trying to move from a format
that a consortium controls to a format that _they_ control. Until they submit
WebM to a standards body, I can't believe that this is all for our benefit.

------
seiji
To get clarity of thought on the debate, go back and read
<http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/archives/377>

Everybody seems to be crying "but hardware support is coming soon!" without
seeing it's difficult: "The unfortunate problem with this is that it’s a
nightmare for hardware implementations, greatly increasing memory bandwidth
requirements."

It comes down to WebM/VP8 being inferior (in specification and implementation)
to an existing widely deployed (in bits and gates) codec.

Feel free to argue the fallacies of the osnews questions if your time is worth
nothing.

~~~
antimatter15
Does anyone else feel it's weird that there's only one blog that everyone
happens to link to whenever something related to vp8 springs up? It's been
half a year, you would think there are independently arrived analyses by now.

Most people could probably agree that taking everything that John Gruber says
as the truth without any other sources is a bad idea, but that's exactly the
landscape of evidence presented for/against vp8. Thankfully, Dark Shikari's
writeup is great, but there really needs to be more evidence.

~~~
seiji
It's strange everybody points to the same source, but it's not unusual there
is only one source.

Break it down: How many codec developers do you know? How many of those people
do open source implementation comparisons? How many of those write it up? How
many of _those_ write it up intelligently for public consumption?

~~~
jwr
Also, there are probably many people (myself included) who are familiar with
implementation details of video codecs, but after reading Jason's articles
decide that he basically said everything there was to be said.

------
dev_jim
Gruber's post wasn't about being a proponent of H.264. It was asking why
Google was being so hypocritical with (1) Flash still bundled in Chrome and
(2-3) their flagship support of H.264 with Android and YouTube.

It's one thing to be a proponent of the open web. However, it is just amazing
the length people will go to in this "debate" to justify Google's hypocrisy.
This is a corporate strategy move aimed at controlling the market and jamming
up Apple and it's hundreds of millions of devices that play H.264. Gimme a
break.

~~~
tolmasky
These scenarios are just not analogous so there's no way to be hypocritical or
not hypocritical.

On the one hand you have Flash, which has been around for ages and you can't
just take it out without breaking a lot of the web. If someone found an open
way to render Flash (like if Flash Gordon somehow got good enough to do it), I
_guarantee_ you that Google would remove Flash. They would much prefer this to
having to bend over backwards to render it in a different process and blah
blah blah. The only reason Apple was able to remove Flash was because they
entered the mobile landscape, where having a browser that couldn't render
Flash still rendered more of the "real web" than most competing mobile
browsers at the time. However, you don't see them dropping support for it in
Safari (and not including the plugin on some macs is not dropping support). If
you _couldn't_ run flash at all on a Mac, ever, it would be disastrous.

H.264 on the other hand is a brand new technology, there is still time to make
the right move before we end up in the same position as we are with Flash
today: everyone wanting it gone but it not being easy to remove it (similar to
the GIF situation as well). On top of that Google controls the biggest video
supplier of the web, thus they have the additional ability to make the
transition less painful.

~~~
dev_jim
_> On the one hand you have Flash, which has been around for ages and you
can't just take it out without breaking a lot of the web._

Google does not need to bake Flash into Chrome. Somehow browsers have survived
a decade without the need. Google's stance is bullshit corporate strategy. You
bending over backwards to justify it is just comical.

 _> If you couldn't run flash at all on a Mac, ever, it would be disastrous._

For Adobe. It's not going to affect anyone's purchase of a Macbook just as it
didn't affect anyone's purchase of an iPad.

 _> H.264 on the other hand is a brand new technology_

Wrong. H.264 has been around for 7 years. It has hardware decoders in nearly
every mobile device. It encodes 2/3 (and probably more now) of the web's
video. It's used by almost every single major content provider.

It is WebM that is the new technology. Released 8 months ago to be precise. No
hardware support yet (sorry, releasing VHDL designs doesn't count), almost
zero content support, etc, etc. This isn't even close.

 _> there is still time to make the right move before we end up in the same
position as we are with Flash today: everyone wanting it gone but it not being
easy to remove it_

Except no one wants H.264 gone. It's a high quality standard supported by
devices everywhere.

 _> (similar to the GIF situation as well)_

The GIF situation turned out fine. Thanks for the great counterexample to your
logic.

~~~
jasonlotito
> Google does not need to bake Flash into Chrome

Might I inquire where I can find Google Flash in Chrome? I only have Adobe
Flash. Until you can show me a Google developed Flash, it's merely Google
shipping an Adobe plugin, which is not the same as actively supporting H.264.

------
tomlin
It's doubtful Gruber will address this, as it would be a bit like hammering a
square (logic) into a circle (Apple).

My personal fav:

    
    
      If Apple were to switch to WebM and drop H.264 tomorrow,
      would you then herald it as a great move?
    

Most likely. PowerPC to Intel, anyone?

~~~
redrobot5050
Apple supported PowerPC for 2 years after the transition. Ignoring that fact,
well said.

~~~
danudey
And PowerPC content (applications) worked fine on Intel Machines for years
(and still does if you install Rosetta).

The same couldn't be said if Apple dropped support for H.264. Old content
would cease to work immediately.

~~~
redrobot5050
Well, you could use VLC or an application that does not rely on system codecs
or quicktime, but you are exactly right.

------
Anechoic
" _Are you aware of the fact that On2 released VP3 before H.264 was released
(2000 vs. 2003), and that therefore, the MPEG-LA most likely infringes on On2
(now owned by Google) patents?_ "

That does not follow at all.

edit: I should say that it only follows if the patents in the patent pool
apply exclusively/specifically to H.264.

~~~
raganwald
Your point is excellent.

The thing to remember is that when two systems each have patents, it's a false
dichotomy to ask which set of patents trump the other. It's entirely possible
that VP3 infringes on MPEG-LA patents _and_ H.264 infringes on On2/Google
patents.

The chronology of the two is nearly irrelevant.

~~~
ergo98
>The thing to remember is that when two systems each have patents, it's a
false dichotomy to ask which set of patents trump the other.

Where is the false dichotomy?

The current talking point on the h264 versus WebM war is that WebM is a patent
landmine, while your back is covered with h264. There is some sort of broad
belief that h264 is a universal got-your-back patent defense, and that is
simply ludicrous.

~~~
po
The false dichotomy is exactly as he said: that one or the other has to be
infringing on the other.

As to your point, h264 has been on the market for a while now and is
implemented by some seriously deep pockets. If you were the captain of the
submarine patent ship, you would probably have fired the torpedos by now. If
you're a new company, you'll feel pretty safe standing with Apple and all of
the other MPEG licensees who have a vested interest in fighting. This is not
the case with WebM.

------
antimatter15
The argument with the licensing fees for Mozilla to implement h.264 is
probably a non-issue, and it doesn't do justice to frame it as such. The
Mozilla Corporation does have a revenue stream (largely from Google) and MPEG-
LA would probably be willing to allow Mozilla to license without paying the
fees given their pivotal role in the fate of the de-facto standard. Operating
systems often provide h.264 decoder APIs, like in QuickTime and Windows Media
Player that they could use to circumvent the licensing fees.

Mozilla is doing it entirely out of ideology (and sticks to their ideology
much more than Google usually does).

~~~
jarek
Cool. How about licensing fees for Opera? For any other browser maker?

~~~
Samuel_Michon
Why would Opera get a special deal? It's not like they make an open source
browser. It seems misplaced to give handouts to a publicly traded company,
with offices in ten countries, and who receive $80 million in revenues a year.

~~~
jarek
But that's exactly the point. You can give Mozilla special treatment, but that
only underlines the fact browser makers will have to pay unless you
specifically exempt them.

------
Samuel_Michon
_"# 10 [...] If Apple were to switch to WebM and drop H.264 tomorrow, would
you then herald it as a great move?"_

I bet it would help, but I don't see Apple doing that anytime soon.

Currently, Apple uses PowerVR and nVidia chips for hardware decoding in
iDevices and Macs, and those companies have already shown interest in building
chips that offer WebM support. But Apple would have to find some way to
support WebM hardware decoding on current devices, something like a Rosetta
layer for video playback.

If Apple were to only include full support on new devices, it would feel the
wrath of the entire tech press, not to mention organizations like Consumer
Reports and Greenpeace. Apple only risks that kind of bad press when it's
about a technology they've authored themselves.

~~~
WiseWeasel
I doubt Consumer Reports or the tech media would have much to gripe about WebM
hardware decoding support being added to new iDevices, since there is no
compelling WebM-exclusive content to which current device owners would be
deprived access, (we'll leave Greenpeace out of this, as it's often difficult
to rationalize their behavior). There is little risk to Apple's reputation
with their customers by hedging their bets and including WebM support; only
potential increased component costs, less optimal power consumption and patent
litigation.

On the latter, I'd estimate the risk that the MPEG LA would go after an MPEG 4
licensee (and member of the MPEG organization) for violating the patents they
have already licensed to be fairly slim; one might expect them to focus more
on non-MPEG-licensed vendors distributing WebM decoders and encoders. So if
the power usage and component costs are reasonable, there should be little
obstacle for Apple.

~~~
Samuel_Michon
The author's proposal is that Apple adopts WebM and drops all support for
h.264.

That would mean that (amongst other things) all video content from the iTunes
Store would have to be reencoded for WebM and the YouTube app on iOS would
stream WebM instead of h.264. But that way, older Apple products won't have
access to the majority of online video, or if Apple provides software
decoding, battery life will suffer significantly.

I can't imagine Apple even considering such a move, but if they did, don't you
think the press would have a field day?

~~~
WiseWeasel
The article's author was simply trying to make a point, not implying that
Apple was in any way likely to actually drop support for h.264. The post I was
responding to never addressed the possibility that Apple might do such a
thing. Let's get real here.

------
danh
The author seems to want to frame Google's WebM move as a question of Good vs.
Evil (as does Gruber btw.), which is not very helpful. As with most
everything, there are both costs and benefits.

The main benefit is that Google's move may reduce the risk that the MPEG
consortium goes crazy in the future, and starts to charge every possible user,
causing havoc in the process.

The main cost is more certain: a huge inconvenience for content producers that
were hoping to get away with going H.264 only, causing havoc in the process.

The interesting question is the usual one: is the benefit worth the cost?

~~~
rahoulb
I don't think Gruber is framing it as "good vs evil".

More - "why are you dropping support for H264 on grounds of openness but not
dropping support for Flash (and MP3 and AAC) on those same grounds?"

------
risotto
The only problem I see is the iPhone and iPad.

All other browsers are open enough to get native support or have a plugin.
Android phones will have support. Who knows or cares what happens on WP7...

Google is taking a stand. It is annoying that Google is removing existing
support for h264. It will be annoying if Apple is completely against adding a
software WebM decoder for current gen iOS devices, and ignore hardware
solutions on next gen ones. But both companies are free to do whatever.

I also think this will have negligible impact in the real world. Youtube will
always work on whatever. Content providers can just upload stuff there if they
don't want to manage multiple formats themselves.

------
RyanMcGreal
I may feel more sympathetic to the author of these questions, but they are
ultimately just as rhetorical and passive-aggressive as Gruber's - i.e. not a
particularly useful contribution to the debate.

------
Entlin
With mobile being more important in the long run than desktops, and Android
gaining ever more importance over the iPhone, we just need Google adopting
their open codecs in both Android hardware and YouTube, and it's game over for
h.264.

~~~
fleitz
Yes, most definitely, I mean who would want to cater to a giant install base
of people who you know actually _buy_ software and are willing to pay a
premium for UX.

Google cant put hardware into most Android _devices_ because they don't make
them. Heck, you can barely upgrade your Android software on most
carriers/devices. Google should first figure out how to prevent
carries/manufactures from installing crapware on their handsets.

~~~
vetinari
Well, the upcoming generation of mobile chipsets supports VP8. Tegra 2, for
example, supports both decoding and encoding of VP8.

~~~
ZeroGravitas
I hadn't heard that (and thought I'd been paying attention), so if anyone else
was doubting _vetinari_ , here's a link:

<http://www.nvidia.com/object/tegra-2.html>

Claims decode for Theora, VP8 and Vorbis, as well as encode and
videoconference for VP8.

Basically every Android tablet at CES was Tegra 2 (I think it's the reference
platform for Honeycomb) as well as a few of the high-end phones e.g. Motorola
Atrix

------
ZeroGravitas
11\. Why are you quoting random conspiracy theory Slashdot comments to support
your take on H.264 vs. WebM?

<http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/01/12/slashdot-comment>

~~~
foljs
Because they contain a nice argument? Duh!

------
watty
Ugh, I'm so sick of seeing arguments to or from Gruber. He's like a constant
Apple soap opear. Google is a business and they're allowed to make decisions.
Switching to WebM saves them money, pushes their codec, and their users
(Chrome) lose ZERO functionality. Google obviously feels that this switch is
beneficial to them and their users in the long run. If you disagree, don't use
Chrome.

~~~
guywithabike
Those who forced you to click the link have been sacked.

