This is a pretty poor rebuttal to what was actually a fairly well written (like it's opinion or not) article by Ars. Ars fairly clearly delineated the difference between "open standards" and "open/free to use" and this one mixes them up continuously
This statement "Indeed, most sites offer different bandwidth options and video sizes. They are already converting the video!" shows a pretty clear lack of understanding on how most site's encoding processes work (you generally encode once at different bitrates, not once at one and others as you need them)
I have to disagree, the article points out a lot of flaws in the Ars. article. The premise of the article is self-contradictory: H.264 is patent encumbered, open web means open/free to use for anybody, these two don't relate to each other.
I find it dubious to suggest the following: we should use it, just because most other people use it.
Google dropping this codec actually helps prevent h.264's monopoly.
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?
On desktops, falling back to flash for H.264 decoding is a pretty good strategy.
On mobiles, though, Google's change has a bigger effect. Flash is abysmal (if existent) on Android devices--and now there is no clear solution that doesn't involve serving multiple encodings.
Before this change, you could be comfortable that your H.264 HTML5 video would play on the majority of smartphones; the flash fallback was only necessary for desktop browsers.
From what I understand, the main reason for Mozilla and Opera not wanting to include H.264 is that there would be licensing fees for including a decoder with the browser. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it could potentially cost both Mozilla and Opera a significant amount in licensing fees to include H.264 support.
Apple doesn't care because it's already a licensee, the same for Microsoft (including in Win7) and Google (encoding for YouTube).
I'm kind of curious... It seems like the MPEG-LA is doing great work by creating all these video and audio compression codecs. MP3 is used by everybody, MPEG2 was good for the day, and now H.264 is even better. Plus, nobody else seems to be coming up with something compelling. Sure, there's WebM and VP8, but if I recall correctly, they are, at best, at parity with H.264. It seems like here's a good case of patents being useful: the MPEG people do research and create great codecs and we all pay them a $1 (or something) in licensing fees so we get small video. I'm all for open standards and free and Free software, but it seems like H.264 is a net will, compared to what we'd have without it. (Remember the days of huge .wav files and electronic .mod files before MP3 came out?)
You know what we actually need? A h.264-buyout. Let's ask MPEG-LA how much they are planning to earn by the time their licence runs out (2024?). It will probably be ~200 Million or so. Then ask the whole internet to chip in.
Result: all the open source people are happy, and we all get to use the higher quality codec in any application we can imagine. And we also get to keep our devices with their battery efficient dedicated h.264-decompression chips.
Or we could just use VP8. All the open source people are happy, the codec will quickly improve, and the vast majority of your devices with their battery efficient dedicated H.264-decompression chips will be replaced by devices with battery efficient dedicated VP8 and H.264-decompression chips within three years. We also save 200 mill.
Not really. If anything, it's the eventual use of market power for profiteering.
> But it would become another closed de facto standard, just like IE6.
Huh? IE6 is a browser not a standard.
> This is comparing apples and oranges. Flash is a plugin,
This is splitting hairs and a straw man. The user does not care or typically doesn't differentiate between something that's part of the browser and something that is a bundled plug-in. The user experience is basically the same.
So any argument using a criteria about building in a proprietary and closed standard to the browser versus bundling a proprietary and closed plug-in is at somewhere between fatuous and disingenuous.
> If you want to do any kind of video on the web, you don't have a choice. Flash is needed.
WRONG. Bizarrely wrong in fact since we're arguing about the HTML5 container for video and supported codecs. Flash isn't involved. This isn't vapourware either. Modern browsers already support it.
> it is much more likely that an open format will prevail in the end.
If there are two dominant standards, sites will be faced with a choice: double-encode everything or pick one. Many have already picked H.264. What's more likely? Double-encoding or simply delivering H.264 to Chrome via a Flash (rather than HTML5) container?
If anything, this move prolongs the existence of Flash.
> Just because a format is widespread offline does not mean that it is suitable for use on the web.
Is the author really suggesting H.264 a) isn't widespread on the Web and/or b) isn't suitable for use on the Web? Really?
> In other words: The processing will always be there, and instead of re-processing to a slightly more compressed H.264 file for online play, it can be converted to an open format.
If the author thinks this move will displace H.264 they are sadly mistaken. For one, the license fees for using H.264 are negligible for the largest players. For another, there is an enormous installed base of devices with hardware H.264 decoding. Hundreds of millions in fact, most notably the various Apple iDevices.
These provide a compelling use for the continued use of H.264 in the long term.
> As already explained, videos are typically re-encoded or processed in some way anyway.
Yes but double the processing and double the storage are real issues.
> Notice the word "plugin". It means that we're basically removing HTML5 video, and returning to plugins. All the benefits of native video disappear just like that
What benefits are those exactly? At least for now the user experience, HTML5 video is still playing catch up to Flash video in terms of user experience.
> If I am not mistaken, the share of open standards based browsers is growing at the expense of Internet Explorer.
Worst case for IE is still about ~50%. That still makes it the single largest browser. Chrome's share exceeds Safari's (AFAIK) but the latter is still significant and I can't imagine it getting WebM support anytime soon. Apple are very much wedded to H.264 support by virtue of their devices if nothing else (anecdote: I played 6 hours of video on a plane on my iPad using 10% of the battery).
> it is H.264 which takes away choice.
By definition, not giving someone a choice takes away choices.
All of the arguments for this move seem to be focused on the long term. That's fine but in the short term it will unarguably cause users and sites headaches.
> I also find it puzzling that Google is being accused of giving users fewer choices, while Microsoft and Apple aren't even mentioned.
Hold yourself to a higher standard (and, more importantly, preach those standards to others) and you will be the recipient of greater scrutiny.
At best, the author's argument descends to "two wrongs make a right".
Note: I'm saying arguing in favour of Flash. In fact, I consider the lack of Flash on my iDevices to be a feature rather than a limitation.
Ironically this moves will likely prolong Flash and slow the adoption of HTML5 as a result.
> But it would become another closed de facto standard, just like IE6.
Huh? IE6 is a browser not a standard.
Well, neither can H.264 be a standard, it is a non-free codec for video. The key was de facto..
Internet Explorer 6, at the peak of its dominance, became the standard that many web developers developed for. Even though it wasn't a standard, when it had over 90% of the market, it was often the only browser that was developed for and other browsers were locked out or suffered. Browsers like Opera spoofed as IE by default, Netscape had quirks to behave similar to IE in some respects...
It's saying that everyone who wasn't on H.264 would suffer or be forced to conform, as was the case with IE6 for some time.
"Works on IE6" is a type of HTML/CSS/JS that works on IE6. People had to make websites to work on IE6. That meant new features of the web (HTML, JS & CSS) could not be used because they didn't work on IE6.
> > But it would become another closed de facto standard, just like IE6.
> Huh? IE6 is a browser not a standard.
If you don't understand why the article is correct, you really don't understand the topic. It's fine to disagree, but this statement demonstrates your complete lack of knowledge in the area.
> > It's called bait and switch.
> Not really. If anything, it's the eventual use of market power for profiteering.
Personally I think "bait and switch" fits here correctly.
> > But it would become another closed de facto standard, just like IE6.
> Huh? IE6 is a browser not a standard.
I don't think that you understand what "de facto standard" means. Or maybe you understand, but choose to ignore it to make bullshit argument.
> > This is comparing apples and oranges. Flash is a plugin,
> This is splitting hairs and a straw man.
Really? I thought we are talking here about video codecs not Flash. Please stick to meritum. Dont use red herring. Why do you insist to bring Flash to discussion about two video codecs?
>WRONG. Bizarrely wrong in fact since we're arguing about the HTML5 container for video and supported codecs. Flash isn't involved.
Oh so now you insist that Flash isn't involved in this discussion?
> This isn't vapourware either. Modern browsers already support it.
But old browser are still here for at least couple years. I still have to deal with people using IE6 - 10 years after original release. One of the ways, for people building websites, to deal with old browser is to use Flash for certain tasks. So some websites still require Flash as they need to deal with this type of users. But let's not divert this discussion to Flash as it's NOT what we are talking about.
> If there are two dominant standards, sites will be faced with a choice: double-encode everything or pick one. Many have already picked H.264. What's more likely? Double-encoding or simply delivering H.264 to Chrome via a Flash (rather than HTML5) container?
True, there will be probably double encoding involved, but most likely only for certain period of time, the time of transition. Once WebM will gain popularity, double encoding will end, as majority of providers will chose free format.
And google just took first steps to popularize WebM.
> If anything, this move prolongs the existence of Flash.
Here we go again. You bring Flash to discussion whenever you don't have another argument. But if you insist - there is still massive hole in your logic: "> What's more likely? Double-encoding or simply delivering H.264 to Chrome via a Flash (rather than HTML5) container?" I don't know if you realize but major players (youtube, vimeo, etc.) in web video double-encode at least since a year - at least to VP6 and h.264.
But there is even bigger hole in your logic: "...simply delivering H.264 to Chrome via a Flash..." - you just contradicted yourself by saying that it's in fact h.264 that keeps Flash alive (that you hate so much). If we remove h.264 and propagate WebM, we will remove flash as a fallback dependency.
> > Just because a format is widespread offline does not mean that it is suitable for use on the web.
> Is the author really suggesting H.264 a) isn't widespread on the Web and/or b) isn't suitable for use on the Web? Really?
a) No, not really. You're putting YOUR words in original author's mouth. He said that it's widespread offline. He didn't said anything about it's web share. Your biased point of view implied this.
b) Yes, he meant that, but you skipped context of the article. Article is in context of OPEN web, and in that context H.264 isn't suitable.
> If the author thinks this move will displace H.264 they are sadly mistaken. For one, the license fees for using H.264 are negligible for the largest players.
License fees for large players might be negligible but if another - free - format will become widespread enough they will simply switch to that free one, as there will be no reason to pay that fees. And as most big players are public companies, or parts of public companies, they have obligation to shareholders to maximize profits which is easy if you can cut costs.
> For another, there is an enormous installed base of devices with hardware H.264 decoding. Hundreds of millions in fact, most notably the various Apple iDevices.
And that step by Google is an attempt to change it. And given time it will change. First new devices will incorporate hardware encoding of WebM along with h.264. Later, given time they will abandon h.264. You think in categories of months. Big players think in years. Also, I remember people using similar argument against Android, and now android sells biggest number of smartphones.
> These provide a compelling use for the continued use of H.264 in the long term.
And to force world to use paid format for long term.
> Yes but double the processing and double the storage are real issues.
But adoption of WebM will not change situation. We encode to multiple formats whether WebM is here or not. And long term view is that widespread adoption of WebM might actually end that and end licensing fees. So double savings.
> What benefits are those exactly? At least for now the user experience, HTML5 video is still playing catch up to Flash video in terms of user experience.
So now you're arguing that there are no benefits of html5 video? What about the benefit of knowing that user of certain browser definitely have support for your video without requirement of using plugins, which might or might not be there? Honestly, are you trying that hard to shoot yourself in the foot, or are you just picking arguments when they are suitable to prove your point, whatever it is.
> HTML5 video is still playing catch up to Flash video in terms of user experience.
Are you now in favor of using flash instead html5 video? Sure html5 video is playing catch up with flash, but it's playing catchup regardless we use h.264 or WebM. And again, given time html5 video might catch up. If it will not than we will still use flash regardless if dominant codec will be h.264 or WebM.
> Worst case for IE is still about ~50%. That still makes it the single largest browser.
> I can't imagine it [Safari] getting WebM support anytime soon.
Apple might change their mind anytime if there will be money or pressure involved. Just like they finally removed ban on flash apps from appstore.
> By definition, not giving someone a choice takes away choices.
But you will have a choice. If you like h.264 you can install plugin, if you like Flash you will have Flash, and if you like WebM you will have WebM.
> All of the arguments for this move seem to be focused on the long term. That's fine but in the short term it will unarguably cause users and sites headaches.
Ah, sorry, I see you actually understand that it's not overnight change that they play in here. Sorry again your opinions above were worded (or understood by me) like you didn't understand that.
> That's fine but in the short term it will unarguably cause users and sites headaches.
That's true, but we are already in times of transition from Flash to html5 video, so that's the best time to make strategic moves like that.
> At best, the author's argument descends to "two wrongs make a right".
> Note: I'm saying arguing in favour of Flash. In fact, I consider the lack of Flash on my iDevices to be a feature rather than a limitation.
I don't really understand what you are trying to imply here.
> Ironically this moves will likely prolong Flash and slow the adoption of HTML5 as a result.
As I stated many times above I don't think you're right about that. In fact I think opposite - keeping h.264 is prolonging flash and slowing adoption of HTML5.
I'm actually curious about the differences in the formats. Is H.264 a better format? If so, does that mean that the web will always choose "free" over quality, if so, is there any incentive to create better embedded technologies, if a "free" albeit technically worse "knockoff" is available regardless of how open the other tech is, simply because it wants to be compensated when used by commercial entities that plan to profit off their work. For example, if they had non-commercial, GPLv2 and commercial licensing options.
The main problem with WebM/VP8 vs. H.264, especially in the face of the mobile internet device explosion, is hardware acceleration.
Once devices start coming with native WebM acceleration, it won't be an issue. Given that Android is so popular and Google is looking to abandon H.264, it's inevitable that hardware acceleration will come to phones, probably in conjunction with H.264 acceleration (just like H.264 and H.263 right now) At that point, any ARM platform with a H.264 acceleration will include a WebM acceleration, and it would be more than trivial for Apple/Microsoft/whoever to implement WebM in their mobile browsers.
A more interesting day will be when Google says "Android 3.x phones must have WebM acceleration"
Quite simply, what most people are missing here is that Chrome is removing H.264. How does removing a capability of a browser enhance its capabilities?
Its nice that they add WebM, but there is just no practical reason for removing H.264.
What about video support for existing Android devices? AFAIK WebM is only available for Gingerbread, which means the large majority of Android devices would have to fall back on Flash for Android. And that's not fully-baked yet.
I can't see why this won't be turned into a lawsuit w.r.t. intentional degradation of performance/battery life.
I like his point that the core of the debate should really be about choice. But then he lost me when he characterized the MPEG-LA as a ruthless cartel.
>I also find it puzzling that Google is being accused of giving users fewer choices, while Microsoft and Apple aren't even mentioned. They refuse to support WebM, after all.
Err, Microsoft has already declared that WebM will be supported if a compatible plugin codec is installed on the machine. They just don't want patent trolls (successfully) suing them for shipping hundreds of WebM decoders. After all, Google is not indemnifying users of WebM from patents(like Android OEMs like HTC were left on their own when Apple decided to sued) like Microsoft does with Windows Phone 7.
Opera is being disingenuous by spinning this as if Microsoft blocks WebM from being used in IE9 for the HTML5 video tag.
Chrome is 100% compliant without extraneous h264 support. The HTML5 spec contains no requirement for h264. If you want to blame anyone then blame the W3C working group for not specifying a codec.
As of now h264 is on the same level as ActiveX and VBScript so you might as well ask for Chrome to support those, too.
Granted, in this respect WebM is not perfect either. But at least WebM is meets the criteria to be a part of the W3C spec without modification whereas currently h264 does not.
tl;dr Don't complain if Chrome uses WebM for <video>. My browser will only support Dirac and we're both right.
If Google is truly whole-heartedly after the openness of web video, they should go ahead and disable H.264 playback in the bundled flash plugin in Chrome. It's technically just a simple wrap around the stock flash plugin. Given their cozy relationship with Adobe, they might even get a special binary from adobe, cut down the download size of Chrome and save bandwidth cost (which I believe is a greater saving than the $6.5 million)!
[+] [-] mikeryan|15 years ago|reply
This statement "Indeed, most sites offer different bandwidth options and video sizes. They are already converting the video!" shows a pretty clear lack of understanding on how most site's encoding processes work (you generally encode once at different bitrates, not once at one and others as you need them)
[+] [-] DjDarkman|15 years ago|reply
I find it dubious to suggest the following: we should use it, just because most other people use it. Google dropping this codec actually helps prevent h.264's monopoly.
[+] [-] grayrest|15 years ago|reply
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?
[+] [-] MiguelHudnandez|15 years ago|reply
On mobiles, though, Google's change has a bigger effect. Flash is abysmal (if existent) on Android devices--and now there is no clear solution that doesn't involve serving multiple encodings.
Before this change, you could be comfortable that your H.264 HTML5 video would play on the majority of smartphones; the flash fallback was only necessary for desktop browsers.
[+] [-] Osiris|15 years ago|reply
Apple doesn't care because it's already a licensee, the same for Microsoft (including in Win7) and Google (encoding for YouTube).
[+] [-] prewett|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Entlin|15 years ago|reply
Result: all the open source people are happy, and we all get to use the higher quality codec in any application we can imagine. And we also get to keep our devices with their battery efficient dedicated h.264-decompression chips.
[+] [-] jarek|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aw3c2|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rbanffy|15 years ago|reply
And enable them? Let them become irrelevant.
[+] [-] cletus|15 years ago|reply
> It's called bait and switch.
Not really. If anything, it's the eventual use of market power for profiteering.
> But it would become another closed de facto standard, just like IE6.
Huh? IE6 is a browser not a standard.
> This is comparing apples and oranges. Flash is a plugin,
This is splitting hairs and a straw man. The user does not care or typically doesn't differentiate between something that's part of the browser and something that is a bundled plug-in. The user experience is basically the same.
So any argument using a criteria about building in a proprietary and closed standard to the browser versus bundling a proprietary and closed plug-in is at somewhere between fatuous and disingenuous.
> If you want to do any kind of video on the web, you don't have a choice. Flash is needed.
WRONG. Bizarrely wrong in fact since we're arguing about the HTML5 container for video and supported codecs. Flash isn't involved. This isn't vapourware either. Modern browsers already support it.
> it is much more likely that an open format will prevail in the end.
If there are two dominant standards, sites will be faced with a choice: double-encode everything or pick one. Many have already picked H.264. What's more likely? Double-encoding or simply delivering H.264 to Chrome via a Flash (rather than HTML5) container?
If anything, this move prolongs the existence of Flash.
> Just because a format is widespread offline does not mean that it is suitable for use on the web.
Is the author really suggesting H.264 a) isn't widespread on the Web and/or b) isn't suitable for use on the Web? Really?
> In other words: The processing will always be there, and instead of re-processing to a slightly more compressed H.264 file for online play, it can be converted to an open format.
If the author thinks this move will displace H.264 they are sadly mistaken. For one, the license fees for using H.264 are negligible for the largest players. For another, there is an enormous installed base of devices with hardware H.264 decoding. Hundreds of millions in fact, most notably the various Apple iDevices.
These provide a compelling use for the continued use of H.264 in the long term.
> As already explained, videos are typically re-encoded or processed in some way anyway.
Yes but double the processing and double the storage are real issues.
> Notice the word "plugin". It means that we're basically removing HTML5 video, and returning to plugins. All the benefits of native video disappear just like that
What benefits are those exactly? At least for now the user experience, HTML5 video is still playing catch up to Flash video in terms of user experience.
> If I am not mistaken, the share of open standards based browsers is growing at the expense of Internet Explorer.
Worst case for IE is still about ~50%. That still makes it the single largest browser. Chrome's share exceeds Safari's (AFAIK) but the latter is still significant and I can't imagine it getting WebM support anytime soon. Apple are very much wedded to H.264 support by virtue of their devices if nothing else (anecdote: I played 6 hours of video on a plane on my iPad using 10% of the battery).
> it is H.264 which takes away choice.
By definition, not giving someone a choice takes away choices.
All of the arguments for this move seem to be focused on the long term. That's fine but in the short term it will unarguably cause users and sites headaches.
> I also find it puzzling that Google is being accused of giving users fewer choices, while Microsoft and Apple aren't even mentioned.
Hold yourself to a higher standard (and, more importantly, preach those standards to others) and you will be the recipient of greater scrutiny.
At best, the author's argument descends to "two wrongs make a right".
Note: I'm saying arguing in favour of Flash. In fact, I consider the lack of Flash on my iDevices to be a feature rather than a limitation.
Ironically this moves will likely prolong Flash and slow the adoption of HTML5 as a result.
[+] [-] jawee|15 years ago|reply
Huh? IE6 is a browser not a standard.
Well, neither can H.264 be a standard, it is a non-free codec for video. The key was de facto..
Internet Explorer 6, at the peak of its dominance, became the standard that many web developers developed for. Even though it wasn't a standard, when it had over 90% of the market, it was often the only browser that was developed for and other browsers were locked out or suffered. Browsers like Opera spoofed as IE by default, Netscape had quirks to behave similar to IE in some respects...
It's saying that everyone who wasn't on H.264 would suffer or be forced to conform, as was the case with IE6 for some time.
[+] [-] rmc|15 years ago|reply
"Works on IE6" is a type of HTML/CSS/JS that works on IE6. People had to make websites to work on IE6. That meant new features of the web (HTML, JS & CSS) could not be used because they didn't work on IE6.
[+] [-] jasonlotito|15 years ago|reply
If you don't understand why the article is correct, you really don't understand the topic. It's fine to disagree, but this statement demonstrates your complete lack of knowledge in the area.
[+] [-] lucasf|15 years ago|reply
Personally I think "bait and switch" fits here correctly.
> > But it would become another closed de facto standard, just like IE6. > Huh? IE6 is a browser not a standard.
I don't think that you understand what "de facto standard" means. Or maybe you understand, but choose to ignore it to make bullshit argument.
> > This is comparing apples and oranges. Flash is a plugin, > This is splitting hairs and a straw man.
Really? I thought we are talking here about video codecs not Flash. Please stick to meritum. Dont use red herring. Why do you insist to bring Flash to discussion about two video codecs?
>WRONG. Bizarrely wrong in fact since we're arguing about the HTML5 container for video and supported codecs. Flash isn't involved.
Oh so now you insist that Flash isn't involved in this discussion?
> This isn't vapourware either. Modern browsers already support it.
But old browser are still here for at least couple years. I still have to deal with people using IE6 - 10 years after original release. One of the ways, for people building websites, to deal with old browser is to use Flash for certain tasks. So some websites still require Flash as they need to deal with this type of users. But let's not divert this discussion to Flash as it's NOT what we are talking about.
> If there are two dominant standards, sites will be faced with a choice: double-encode everything or pick one. Many have already picked H.264. What's more likely? Double-encoding or simply delivering H.264 to Chrome via a Flash (rather than HTML5) container?
True, there will be probably double encoding involved, but most likely only for certain period of time, the time of transition. Once WebM will gain popularity, double encoding will end, as majority of providers will chose free format. And google just took first steps to popularize WebM.
> If anything, this move prolongs the existence of Flash.
Here we go again. You bring Flash to discussion whenever you don't have another argument. But if you insist - there is still massive hole in your logic: "> What's more likely? Double-encoding or simply delivering H.264 to Chrome via a Flash (rather than HTML5) container?" I don't know if you realize but major players (youtube, vimeo, etc.) in web video double-encode at least since a year - at least to VP6 and h.264. But there is even bigger hole in your logic: "...simply delivering H.264 to Chrome via a Flash..." - you just contradicted yourself by saying that it's in fact h.264 that keeps Flash alive (that you hate so much). If we remove h.264 and propagate WebM, we will remove flash as a fallback dependency.
> > Just because a format is widespread offline does not mean that it is suitable for use on the web.
> Is the author really suggesting H.264 a) isn't widespread on the Web and/or b) isn't suitable for use on the Web? Really?
a) No, not really. You're putting YOUR words in original author's mouth. He said that it's widespread offline. He didn't said anything about it's web share. Your biased point of view implied this. b) Yes, he meant that, but you skipped context of the article. Article is in context of OPEN web, and in that context H.264 isn't suitable.
> If the author thinks this move will displace H.264 they are sadly mistaken. For one, the license fees for using H.264 are negligible for the largest players.
License fees for large players might be negligible but if another - free - format will become widespread enough they will simply switch to that free one, as there will be no reason to pay that fees. And as most big players are public companies, or parts of public companies, they have obligation to shareholders to maximize profits which is easy if you can cut costs.
> For another, there is an enormous installed base of devices with hardware H.264 decoding. Hundreds of millions in fact, most notably the various Apple iDevices.
And that step by Google is an attempt to change it. And given time it will change. First new devices will incorporate hardware encoding of WebM along with h.264. Later, given time they will abandon h.264. You think in categories of months. Big players think in years. Also, I remember people using similar argument against Android, and now android sells biggest number of smartphones.
> These provide a compelling use for the continued use of H.264 in the long term.
And to force world to use paid format for long term.
> Yes but double the processing and double the storage are real issues.
But adoption of WebM will not change situation. We encode to multiple formats whether WebM is here or not. And long term view is that widespread adoption of WebM might actually end that and end licensing fees. So double savings.
> What benefits are those exactly? At least for now the user experience, HTML5 video is still playing catch up to Flash video in terms of user experience.
So now you're arguing that there are no benefits of html5 video? What about the benefit of knowing that user of certain browser definitely have support for your video without requirement of using plugins, which might or might not be there? Honestly, are you trying that hard to shoot yourself in the foot, or are you just picking arguments when they are suitable to prove your point, whatever it is.
> HTML5 video is still playing catch up to Flash video in terms of user experience.
Are you now in favor of using flash instead html5 video? Sure html5 video is playing catch up with flash, but it's playing catchup regardless we use h.264 or WebM. And again, given time html5 video might catch up. If it will not than we will still use flash regardless if dominant codec will be h.264 or WebM.
> Worst case for IE is still about ~50%. That still makes it the single largest browser.
According to these stats http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers IE is loosing 10% of market a year. So it won't take much longer.
> I can't imagine it [Safari] getting WebM support anytime soon.
Apple might change their mind anytime if there will be money or pressure involved. Just like they finally removed ban on flash apps from appstore.
> By definition, not giving someone a choice takes away choices.
But you will have a choice. If you like h.264 you can install plugin, if you like Flash you will have Flash, and if you like WebM you will have WebM.
> All of the arguments for this move seem to be focused on the long term. That's fine but in the short term it will unarguably cause users and sites headaches.
Ah, sorry, I see you actually understand that it's not overnight change that they play in here. Sorry again your opinions above were worded (or understood by me) like you didn't understand that.
> That's fine but in the short term it will unarguably cause users and sites headaches.
That's true, but we are already in times of transition from Flash to html5 video, so that's the best time to make strategic moves like that.
> At best, the author's argument descends to "two wrongs make a right". > Note: I'm saying arguing in favour of Flash. In fact, I consider the lack of Flash on my iDevices to be a feature rather than a limitation.
I don't really understand what you are trying to imply here.
> Ironically this moves will likely prolong Flash and slow the adoption of HTML5 as a result.
As I stated many times above I don't think you're right about that. In fact I think opposite - keeping h.264 is prolonging flash and slowing adoption of HTML5.
[+] [-] eddanger|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] prumek|15 years ago|reply
No rebuttal was really needed because most of the AT article was a red herring. The question is about openness, and h264 fails at that.
[+] [-] asnyder|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] prumek|15 years ago|reply
Webm is an open format owned by an open-source project.
The web ALWAYS needs to choose open over everything else, because that's the whole foundation of the web.
You want people to create html knockoffs? CSS knockoffs?
[+] [-] juiceandjuice|15 years ago|reply
Once devices start coming with native WebM acceleration, it won't be an issue. Given that Android is so popular and Google is looking to abandon H.264, it's inevitable that hardware acceleration will come to phones, probably in conjunction with H.264 acceleration (just like H.264 and H.263 right now) At that point, any ARM platform with a H.264 acceleration will include a WebM acceleration, and it would be more than trivial for Apple/Microsoft/whoever to implement WebM in their mobile browsers.
A more interesting day will be when Google says "Android 3.x phones must have WebM acceleration"
[+] [-] prumek|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Derbasti|15 years ago|reply
Its nice that they add WebM, but there is just no practical reason for removing H.264.
[+] [-] jasonlotito|15 years ago|reply
They don't want to support H.264. You can add an H.264 plugin, but they don't want to support it internally.
Put another way: Why should Apple be required to support Flash if they don't want to?
[+] [-] bbuffone|15 years ago|reply
"The market share of browsers that support H.264 exceeds WebM capable browsers"
Google's online advertising monopoly is working on overdrive to ensure that won't happen.
[+] [-] unknown|15 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] brisance|15 years ago|reply
I can't see why this won't be turned into a lawsuit w.r.t. intentional degradation of performance/battery life.
[+] [-] Timmy_C|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|15 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] recoiledsnake|15 years ago|reply
Err, Microsoft has already declared that WebM will be supported if a compatible plugin codec is installed on the machine. They just don't want patent trolls (successfully) suing them for shipping hundreds of WebM decoders. After all, Google is not indemnifying users of WebM from patents(like Android OEMs like HTC were left on their own when Apple decided to sued) like Microsoft does with Windows Phone 7.
Opera is being disingenuous by spinning this as if Microsoft blocks WebM from being used in IE9 for the HTML5 video tag.
[+] [-] k33l0r|15 years ago|reply
I can't find where I originally read this, but EETimes mentions it at the end of this article: http://www.eetimes.com/design/other/4012977/MPEG-licensing-b...
"Also, MPEG LA does not offer any indemnification guaranteeing that its patents do not infringe someone else's patent rights."
[+] [-] jarek|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] othermaciej|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pedanticfreak|15 years ago|reply
As of now h264 is on the same level as ActiveX and VBScript so you might as well ask for Chrome to support those, too.
Granted, in this respect WebM is not perfect either. But at least WebM is meets the criteria to be a part of the W3C spec without modification whereas currently h264 does not.
tl;dr Don't complain if Chrome uses WebM for <video>. My browser will only support Dirac and we're both right.
[+] [-] eddieplan9|15 years ago|reply