Developers › A Journal from Behind the Trenches › Is the removal of H.264 from Chrome a step backward for openness?
Is the removal of H.264 from Chrome a step backward for openness? comments
Page 2 of 3 (117 comments)
Left under the original article, as archived.
« Previous Pages: 123 Next »
14. January 2011, 22:03
Originally posted by damnbigworld:
This is possibly the silliest most non-sensical line of argument there is. You're arguing that GIF is fundamental to the web because there are very few formats used on the web, yet the same is true of video. No formats have been supplanted by h264, because prior to this there has not been native video on the web. The only video there has been has been in the form of plugins, which tend to have a fairly unified API format - NPAPI, to which the actual backend video format is secondary. You're then arguing that GIF is fundamental because IE wouldn't support PNG (early on) - but that's PRECISELY what we're discussing here now, fragmented browser support of formats being central in deciding what is or isn't used. The parallels are exact.
Erik Lutenegger14. January 2011, 23:20
Originally posted by lucideer:
Nice tangential insult!
Originally posted by lucideer:
Actually, that isn't what I'm saying. I'm saying the web was and continues to be built on those formats. It was not built on a particular video format, nor has any particular format stayed around for a long time. The point here is it doesn't matter whether you pick h264 or WebM it will be gone by 2016 replaced by something better, hopefully. h264 is currently the standard of choice, there is no arguing this. So video isn't a fundamental part of the web, because it wasn't native?Originally posted by lucideer:
No, I said more essential. IE8 still doesn't fully support alpha channel of PNG. Try a jQuery fadeIn on one sometime. IE8 isn't early on, its the most popular browser in the world. That makes the first two better supported or more essential. In the future, PNG will surpass GIF, no question. Or something will surpass PNG.I'm for standardization, I can't wait until I don't have my day ruined by opening up IE and think what the F. But I'm not for Google dropping support the most popular video format out of the blue. Thereby guaranteeing Flash Video is here to stay for many years to come. I just won't forgive faulty logic when people say Flash and mp3 are fine for now because they are so popular, and ignore the popularity of h264. I get this is about the future, but there were better ways to handle this, which Google could have implemented instead. lucideer you are clearly a smart person, I can't imagine you think this is all upside.
Chris15. January 2011, 02:00
Originally posted by twilightomni:
See the W3C patent policy. Or read this:"There's been a lot of ruckus about the definition of 'open', but in this case, Google is absolutely right in their usage of the term. The European Union's definition of an 'open standard' is one that is royalty-free. The Open Source Initiative also lists royalty-free as a requirement. Heck, even Microsoft defines an open standard as one that is royalty-free."
Read the definition. Read the W3C patent policy. Educate yourself. Be happy.
Exactly. This is not about the source. It's about open vs. closed formats/standards.
Google isn't preventing you from doing that. Google is just not actively supporting your twisted and crippling view of the web.
There is a need to torpedo a closed standard that is a danger to the open web.
Chris15. January 2011, 02:02
Originally posted by twilightomni:
There's no ideological stake here. It's the web itself that's at stake. It is not a matter of ideology. It is a matter of keeping the web open, to keep the open web from dying.Chris15. January 2011, 02:05
Originally posted by damnbigworld:
You are pointing out the major mistake that was made, which allowed gif images to litter the open web. They should have picked a specific baseline image format. And there's no reason why that couldn't be updated every now and then.Google didn't drop it out of the blue. They explained why they did it.
Flash will be around for years to come, but native video will gradually replace it. And now there's hope that an open format will win.
The faulty logic is yours. Flash is basically the only thing being used for video online. That's a lost fight. The real fight now is over native video.
Such as? Promoting a closed, proprietary web?
Erik Lutenegger15. January 2011, 03:03
Originally posted by Slamdex:
That's a fair point, however I've already explained why the same thing couldn't happen with h264, but every wants to ignore that.
Out of the blue means unexpectedly, not for no reason.
No question, it's over native video, but making arguments to support the most widespread formats, but not support the most widespread video format still seems illogical.
No, such as, announcing they will be shutting down HTML5 h264 support in 6 to 12 months time, while posting all new videos on Youtube as HTML5 WebM with Flash Fallback. Then converting their entire library to WebM in that same period of time. Finally, open-sourcing a limited version of their encoding platform. That in my mind would have been a better way of handling the issue. This provides those of us that actually work with and develop online video platforms adequate time to develop a solution.
Knut Remi "DrLaunch" Løvli15. January 2011, 11:51
Originally posted by damnbigworld:
It depends on who you ask. If you ask me I'd say it wasn't unexpected because H.264 (mostly) isn't supported in Opera and Firefox. And they made their reasons pretty clear when they made the announcement.
Originally posted by damnbigworld:
Flash Video is currently a de facto standard for video on the web. There is no de facto standard for HTML5 video yet. The reasons to not use H.264 outweigh those for H.264 now.
Chris15. January 2011, 17:21
Originally posted by damnbigworld:
You are claiming that video is not fundamental on the web, but that is exactly what it is, or is becoming.Originally posted by damnbigworld:
Your point being? This wasn't something that was completely unexpected, considering the amount of resources Google had invested in webm.Originally posted by damnbigworld:
The most widespread format is Flash, using various codecs. There's nothing illogical about this, because this means that Google can drop h264, and still support just about all videos on the web. It makes perfect sense.Originally posted by damnbigworld:
They did announce it, and most YouTube videos already exist in the webm format. They will still use Flash for the time being.They have open-sourced webm, and released it as a separate project not owned by them.
So what you wanted to happen has already happened.
Erik Lutenegger15. January 2011, 20:30
Originally posted by drlaunch:
Yes, if you ask the people that use the phrase incorrectly, then I suppose it does depend on who you ask. Sorry, I really have tried to be reasonably cordial here and keep it above the belt so to speak.And h264 is the de facto standard for the codec that Flash uses.
Originally posted by Slamdex:
No, I'm not, I've said the opposite in fact. I never would say that, part of my job is to develop online video platforms. So you might see how I have a different perspective on this issue. Inferior quality, less broad support across multiple platforms, and inadequate tools don't make a win. So screw me for defending the most widespread video codec in the world in any small way. I'm saying that it will cause some problems in the short term(1-2 years), that everyone who doesn't actually work on these platforms may not be considering. And that this may delay the HTML5 video spec from being more broadly implemented. That's it.
Really, I haven't read one article by an industry professional, that said "As expected, Google dropped support for h264...".
It "can" use various codec, but the most popular current codec is h264. Adobe added support in Flash Player in 2007, its adoption has become nearly ubiquitous, because you can encode to one format and deliver to almost all platforms.
I think "most" is stretching it quite a bit, many have been encoded in WebM at 360 and 720, especially things posted in the last few months. If you don't believe me, sign-in and join Youtube's HTML5 trial (youtube.com/html5) in Opera and click around a bit, the vast majority of video is not available as HTML5 WebM.
I was thinking last night, why can I not have a real conversation about the WebM decision on this blog, as I have on other blogs. Then it occurred to me. Oh, this is on the Opera community where the underdog shouts for open standards, it got a huge win this week, and apparently people think I'm trying to take it away. Granted there's some cognitive dissonance in beating on the technically superior h264 format, as closed and promoting/clinging to a "superior?" proprietary browser, but I digress. Clearly, no one here wants to listen to anyone that will point out the actual issues this will cause. So, I'm out, I'll share my thoughts in places where differing opinions are more welcome, hooray for the Opera Community, you win again.
just visiting15. January 2011, 22:27
Originally posted by JamesHT:
The need to transcode to .ogv will go away very soon. When Firefox 4.0 is out (scheduled for next month), all browsers that support open video formats will support WebM. And FLV - why? FLV has been deprecated for ages. Even Adobe recommends using MP4/H.264/AAC for Flash.
Chris15. January 2011, 22:59
Originally posted by damnbigworld:
Not quite. Flash uses a number of different codecs. And even if what you said was true, it would be irrelevant, because it would still be served through Flash, which was the point.Originally posted by damnbigworld:
Maybe you should start paying attention. Did you think Google released WebM for fun?Originally posted by damnbigworld:
80% of all YouTube videos had allegedly been converted to WebM last November.Because your arguments are fallacious, and you get the facts wrong?
There is no congnitive dissonance here. It is just another red herring, like the Flash issue.
The web is not about open source or closed source. It's about open standards. What you use to browse the web is not important. It can use any license. It is not part of the web itself. It's what makes up the actual web that's important.
So again, there's no cognitive dissonance here. But it is clear that you have a thing or two to learn about the web.
So because you are unable to come up with a compelling argument, it is everyone else who is unwilling to listen? Isn't it rather hypocritical of you to bash others for not changing their minds after reading your comments, when you refuse to change your own mind?
Fine. Run away because you lost the debate. And be proud that you left "graciously" by insulting everyone who disagrees with you.
What a great guy!
Swery12315. January 2011, 23:35
Knut Remi "DrLaunch" Løvli15. January 2011, 23:58
Originally posted by damnbigworld:
I suppose you're not in the correct place for this. If this is a major concern for you, you should speak with Opera or Chrome support. As the only people who can hear you here are a bunch of open-standard fanboys, my self included. If you read the history of Opera you'll see why we're defending our position so eagerly.
Any argument you throw in here will be attacked and scrutinized by rabid fanboys to the point where it looks like you're just a fanboy throwing punches in the same battle. Some times it's better to not degrade oneself to the level of other people. I hope you can sort out your problems and come out of this discussion with a confirming smile on your face.
Erik Lutenegger16. January 2011, 00:09
1. What is the current most common video format (codec) on the web?
2. What platforms provide secure streaming of WebM?
2. What tools exist for video encoding for WebM and how do those compare to other more popular codecs?
4. What are the short term ramifications of WebM for online video platforms and the people who work on them?
Seriously, all I'm saying is that this isn't all slurpees and peanut butter cups.
Erik Lutenegger16. January 2011, 00:23
Walt French16. January 2011, 01:02
I cut our cable cord a year ago—we don't watch enough to justify ANY cable bill—and I know hundreds of thousands of others are doing so. Still, TV-type entertainment is converging onto the web and a web without TV will be much more isolated than an iPhone without Flash. And web TV from any professional source will NOT be in WebM: untested, unreliable and supported by essentially one competitor to all content providers. Neither the last mile types (including the wireless firms) nor the hardware manufacturers are about to risk their destinies by listening to the Talmudic debates here about “open” vs “free;” nor, in choosing what content and what format, will they promote Google's ecosystem in ways that will just limit their own opportunity for success.
Maybe in 25 years Americans will prefer to watch YouTube type home videos or Budweiser product-placement supported programs that don't need the current media companies, and maybe entertainment will somehow be “better” for it, and Google's approach will work fine. But gosh, it seems like an incredible stretch.
I'll make a little wager with all comers: at all times in the next 5 years, h.264 will ALWAYS have more video client-hours on the internet than WebM, perhaps at the same >1000:1 ratio of today. Maybe the “free” web can exist in the 21st century on Google's ad revenues, but it will be increasingly reliant on a single firm, an outcome that less than a year ago they swore they opposed.
Asymco.com has a nice piece today that suggests Google is missing the boat by ignoring the dictate that businesses should choose their partners before they choose their implementation. The utter failure of Google TV to cozy up to the content providers suggests that this move is part and parcel of an ingrained inability to cooperate and an effort to freeze the web in isolation to people's desire for media.
It's either a bold, risky move for total control of the web, a tactical move to hinder Apple, or the dumbest strategy I've ever seen from a major organization.
QuHno16. January 2011, 01:15
Who cares about open or closed as long as it stays "FREE!!!" as in "I, as a customer, don't have to pay for it in a direct way or in a way that I don't really notice"?
I don't care if I play my videos in a browser or download and play them with my HDD video recording system. As long as WebM doesn't offer the same high quality in all quantisations (and it doesn't), it is of no use. Re-encoding is no answer, in most of the cases it is not lossless. I prefer original material and if the camera gives me h264, I use it. If I can upload it somewhere and it re-encodes well and with a minimum of quiality loss to stay in the specification of the portal I will continue to use it.
The borders between offline and online are vanishing, online content may be used offline - not only in browsers.
PS: That was my view as a customer. I have other views too ...
Erik Lutenegger16. January 2011, 04:07
This seemed way off of what has been my experience, so I looked up the source. It's 80% of Daily Videos or rather the most popular videos, that are available as WebM. That said, I did an anecdotal WebM test of the top 10 for daily, weekly, monthly, alltime and the results looked like 0, 2, 1, 1, respectively. Admittedly, there a tons and tons of articles that misunderstood or misquoted the statistic, as well, and announced it as 80% of all, so no harm, no foul.
Wes Campaigne16. January 2011, 05:43
"Not free" does not equal "closed".
H.264 is an open format. It is not a free format.
Care should be taken to distinguish between the openness of the format, and the openness of the standard -- the latter generally refers also to the openness of the process used to create the standard, and not just how publicly accessible the specifications are.
H.264 is patent encumbered. H.264 is not royalty-free. Whether or not the patent royalties preclude H.264 from being "open standard" is a matter of definition. (Yes, the W3C stance is a "no".)
H.264 is a product of ITU-T; it is an "open standard" under the definitions of ITU-T and IETF. Details of the standard itself are open and free to access. The process which developed it, similarly, was open and free to participate in.
The only thing stopping it from satisfying the Open Source Initiative's definition of "open standard" is that MPEG-LA has not made "a promise of non-assertion when practiced by open source software" regarding the essential patents. There is a tacit promise of this -- thus, x264 and VLC -- but not a written one.
It meets all criteria of Bruce Perens' definition, except for "No Royalty".
WebM, on the other hand, does NOT meet the criteria for "open standards" given by many organizations. WebM was defined by a single vendor, with no open process or external input. There is not yet any established process for extending the standard, or for creating future revisions of it -- it's entirely up to Google. WebM is not an independent project that is merely "sponsored" by Google -- to contribute, you had to agree to Google's Contributor License Agreement. The project is very much in Google's sole control.
Consequently: Both WebM and H.264 are open. WebM is free, but proprietary; H.264 is non-proprietary, but non-free. Wrap your head around that one.
(Incidentally: HTML5 doesn't mandate support for PNG or JPEG or any other image format, either; it's entirely agnostic about the data formats of ALL embedded content.)
Chris16. January 2011, 11:12
Originally posted by Swery123:
It's a closed standard, not an open standard.Originally posted by damnbigworld:
Flash is the most common way to serve video, regardless of the actual codec (which isn't relevant since it's all wrapped in Flash anyway). Your other questions are just attempts at changing the subject again.Chris16. January 2011, 11:17
Originally posted by WaltFrench:
All video will be converted before it reaches the web anyway. You will never stream video in the same format it is aired on TV. Your argument therefore fails.What will happen is that those who want to bring TV content to the web will be forced to choose: Open or closed. Majority or minority. WebM or h264.
That sounds like an argument against Android. It was "untested, urelable and supported by essentially one competitor," and look what happened. And I haven't even mentioned the fact that WebM isn't owned by Google...
WebM is a separate open-source project. Nice attempt at FUD, though.
Originally posted by WaltFrench:
You do realize that the web exists because it's free and open, right? Why would you argue against the web?Originally posted by WaltFrench:
These businesses are "dictated" to use open web technologies on the web. Do you see them running away from the web?Chris16. January 2011, 11:21
Originally posted by Westacular:
The defnition of an open standard is that it's royalty-free. This is an agreed upon definition which is not only used by the W3C, but also by the EU, and even Microsoft.Originally posted by Westacular:
In other words, it doesn't meat the criteria.Originally posted by Westacular:
This is a red herring. An attempt to cloud the debate. WebM meets the criteria of open format. And just because it isn't a standard today doens't mean it can't become one.WebM is not proprietary. It is free and open.
The reason for that is that the images that are the de facto standard on the web are not patent-encumbered. There's no danger that they will be either.
Video, on the other hand, is up in the air. It's important to make sure it ends up as an open format.
Chris16. January 2011, 11:24
Originally posted by QuHno:
Anyone who wants the web to be the web should care. If you think the web should be open to all, you should care.Originally posted by QuHno:
You'll be disappointed to learn that h264 doesn't either. And h264 baseline, which is what everyone is using, does not offer the highest quality. In fact, WebM is better in many ways.But everything is being re-encoded even today. That h264 video you are watching on YouTube isn't the same file the owner uploaded.
But you won't be using it on the web. It will be re-encoded.
Content on the web will always be re-encoded.
Charles Schloss16. January 2011, 15:49
Originally posted by Slamdex:
And n ow also a common way to do ads on sites
Originally posted by Slamdex:
You have many countries where you can't get the entire free web
Jon Henshaw16. January 2011, 17:20
TheThumb16. January 2011, 17:55
Originally posted by ernesteban:
Is your freedom limited because something costs? Well, welcome to the planet we call Earth. You know, to produce a car the car workers wan't to get paid. And among many things, that contributes to the fact that we have to pay for the car if we want to use it.
I have issues with patents. Actually a lot of issues, especially as they are dealt with in the US. But that does not lead me to think that someone who may have spent loads of time and possibly money to find out a great video coding idea, should not be granted to earn a buck from that. And among the companies listed as part of MPEG-LA, few are among the ones hitting great companies with silly law suits in Texas. When I browse the list, most of them seem to be companies who actually invent and try to do some good stuff.
I am part of IEC/ITU standardization body in another technical area, and I would say that when it comes to these type of questions, few taking part of this debate seem to understand what it's about. What Googles driving forces are is hard to grasp, but one of the biggest drivers would be their own income. I'm actually surprised that the OSS world accepts Google's way of doing things.
TheThumb16. January 2011, 18:10
Originally posted by Asires:
Shit, that's the way to go. And you gladly throw yourselves in the arms of Google instead of preferring a standardized codec? Well, thats your problem! But I do sincerely hope that Google loses this dispute. I don't like what Google has become at all.
Erik Lutenegger16. January 2011, 21:18
Originally posted by Slamdex:
Wrapped in Flash, you mean played by a Flash application? Since, video actually wrapped in Flash is very old school, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, that wrapped, isn't what you meant. The rest of my questions are relevant, if the majority content is already in h264, which I'm sure you know is correct. So, what I'm getting is the actual costs, concerns and ramifications on the people that build & host the web, the ISPs and infrastructure owners, and those that make the content should be ignored. I'll answer my the final question then. For those are involved in the above, a WebM, defacto standard, just more than doubled storage costs, increased bandwidth costs by about 20% (similar WebM quality), increased time it takes to get content to the web by a minimum of 5 times, increased man-hours to get the back catalogs encoded and update our platforms, all while providing no native way to protect the content, and that's just off the top of my head. What seems more likely that businesses will support WebM Native Video or they'll do exactly what they've done for the past 10 years, Flash works, H264 supported on mobile and in-home devices, most users don't care as long as they can watch "Everybody Loves Raymond" with minimal encumbrances...we're done here. Openness is great, slow adoption rate is not.
Originally posted by lukemc:
Yes, it does, but I recommend to everyone here to try using any of the webm encoding apps, but only after using something that uses x264, like Mediacoder (mediacoderhq.com). You'll find yourself screaming at the screen, as to why the progress bar isn't moving. I tried a worst case scenario of this at work on a i7 980x w/ RAID0 and 18GB RAM, did a 3-pass h264 encode, scaling to 720p of a 2 minute 4k clip... less than 3 minutes. One encoder, gave me no options and did it (single pass) in 15 minutes and produced terrible quality, the other just crashed and burned. We'll get there, but the tools to do this effectively aren't here yet.Luke McDougald16. January 2011, 21:26
Tim Faulkner16. January 2011, 21:38
I BELIEVE in unicorns that crap rainbows. Can you come up with an objective argument for how a codec of almost similar age catches up to another that has been seeing broad industry adoption for 8 years?
larskl17. January 2011, 10:31
Chris17. January 2011, 12:11
Originally posted by TheThumb:
Your freedom is limited if you can't implement things that are necessary to work on the web. This isn't about items, but about standards. Your comparison is strange, to say the least.
You seem to be confused. This isn't about Google or not Google. This is about an open or closed web. It just so happens that Google did something to strengthen the open web.
Just because Google does something, that doesn't make it automatically right or wrong.
Originally posted by TheThumb:
See, this is your problem. Your position and argument is based on your disdain Google. It is not based on what actually happened.This isn't about throwin oneself into Google's arms. On the contrary, Google released WebM to the world for free, and with an irrevocable license. You can do anything with WebM. You are not restricted by Google at all.
Chris17. January 2011, 12:17
Originally posted by damnbigworld:
I mean that it's wrapped in a Flash container. It's played through Flash, not through the browser. Flash is a plugin. Plugins are a black box to browsers.Originally posted by damnbigworld:
No, the rest of your questions are not relevant. Flash is the way video is served on the web today. It doesn't matter what the codec is because it's still going through Flash.No, an open web benefits them tremendously, and they'll save money by not having to pay blood money to the MPEG-LA.
These are all empty claims, but also completely irrelevant. I'm sure you could come up with a proprietary alternative to the web which would be theoretically superior in every way, but it doesn't help as long as it's proprietary.
So let's close the web. Is that what you are saying? You are also assuming that nothing can ever be improved in the future. But all of this is a red herring on your part. This discussion is about openness (did you see the title and URL of the blog post?).
Chris17. January 2011, 12:20
Originally posted by TimFaulkner:
Because this is a different part of the industry where Flash is currently dominant. This is the web. There are different rules on the web. For one, the web needs to be built on top of open standards and technologies.Don't forget that WebM-capable browsers will be a huge majority. Safari's market share has stalled around 5%, and both IE and Safari are the worst at getting users to upgrade to the latest version. Opera, Chrome and Firefox are all the best at getting their users on the latest version, so when Firefox 4 is released, 20-40% of the browser market will be using browsers that only support WebM.
A pathetic 5-10% will be using browsers that only support WebM, and out of those, half will be using IE9, which will support WebM just fine if you install it as a codec in Windows.
larskl17. January 2011, 13:19
xale17. January 2011, 14:10
Originally posted by Slamdex:
This actually needs to be stressed a lot more.
An alarming number of users seem to not realize that while IE has a large marketshare, a large part of that will not upgrade to IE9. A big part of them actually can't, even if they wanted to - because IE9 cannot run on Windows XP. And since older versions of IE do not understand the video tag, they are not promoters of h.264.
In fact, as can be realized from this - Safari is the ONLY browser with h.264 support in Windows XP. And needless to say, its usage base in the Windows world is so exceptionally poor to the point that it can be ignored. Chrome previously previously supplied nearly 100% of its access; but Google has clearly shown that is a role they do not wish to fulfill.
Then we also need to consider Linux; which too has no access to an h.264 capable browser. (To my knowledge)
Charles Schloss17. January 2011, 16:36
Originally posted by xale:
I think their might be more if they use the plug ins, I think Safari uses Quciktime for h.264
Knut Remi "DrLaunch" Løvli17. January 2011, 17:02
Originally posted by Slamdex:
Just to clear up some terms:
When you use Flash to play a video on the web, generally, the video won't be wrapped in a Flash container. The Flash file will just contain a video player. This video player will connect to a FLV stream (a file). This stream will contain audio and video of one of the formats defined in the Flash specification.
The server backend can run any way the developer pleases as long as it provides a Flash compliant FLV file for the video player, if I understand correctly.
Originally posted by xale:
Opera on Linux uses GStreamer which supports H.264. But if Windows has to use WebM, Linux users will probably be served the same format.
Wes Campaigne17. January 2011, 17:46
Originally posted by Slamdex:
We can both cherry-pick from Wikipedia's list of definitions for Open standard; the point stands that it isn't as clear-cut as the post and earlier comments suggested. See The Ambiguity of “Open” and VP8 vs. H.264 for a decent breakdown of the finer shades of meaning of "open" and "free" involved in this debate.Originally posted by Slamdex:
The other way to look at it is that it is outside the scope of HTML5 to mandate any specific format, image or video or otherwise; and let the de facto standards evolve on their own. From this perspective, the "red herring" is discussing W3C's specific requirements for open standards, and the prospect of including video codec in HTML5.Originally posted by Slamdex:
I agree, it's quite possible for future revisions of WebM to undergo open standardization processes. But the current specification did not, and nothing has been stated about the future, and that alone is a pretty damn good reason not to rush off building the web around it. The basic definition of "proprietary" is "relating to ownership". The core concept of "proprietary software" is that there is a specific owner of the software, who exercises certain exclusive rights over it. The owner controls it, in ways that others cannot. In the patent situation surrounding WebM, Google does have proprietary controls. Read the patent license (emphasis added): The patents aren't entirely free. I cannot take WebM/VP8, make some changes and fork it into a new project, "WebMPlus": Google's license of the patents to me only covers their use in Google's implementation of VP8/WebM. This means that Google effectively has exclusive control over defining future revisions of or extensions to WebM; anyone else trying to do that would be liable for infringing on Google-owned patents. Google could also create a derivative "WebM v2", that is still covered by some of these patents, and choose to not grant the same royalty-free licensing of the patents to users of the new revision. Does "embrace and extend" sound familiar? Google, as far as I can tell, has made no commitments whosoever to openness or transparency for these future decisions. In this aspect, H.264 is actually more open than WebM.Cutting Spoon17. January 2011, 19:44
Originally posted by Slamdex:
1) You make this sound so easy. There is no bitstream definition.
2) It would help if Youtube fixed its .ogg encoder at least.
3) Bandwidth is very important on phones, not so much on PC.
Originally posted by Westacular:
Good summary there.
At this time, any implementation of Theora that uses PsyOpts will be mostly superior to WebM. The .ogg encoder is still too weak in most implementations, resulting in unacceptable audio quality in many cases. Free video codecs hold the promise to replace h.264, MP3, GIF, PNG, and JPG. However they need solid and varied encoders, better image control, better audio control, better rate control, better transparency support, and native single-frame image support. I would even dare to venture that SVG needs video embed support.
Chris17. January 2011, 20:14
Originally posted by Westacular:
There's no need to cherry-pick. The definition is very clear, especially if you look at the W3C definition, which in the end is the one that counts.Originally posted by Westacular:
But it isn't. The W3C really did want to specify a codec. But Apple and Nokia threatened to walk away and sabotage the whole thing if that happened.Originally posted by Westacular:
I'm not talking about standardization. I'm saying that the WebM is free and open today. It's not standard, but it's free and open. If it was standardized, it would be a free and open standard.Originally posted by Westacular:
No, that is false. What the text is saying is that you can freely do whatever you want to do with WebM, but if you make modifications and those modifications infringe on someone else's patents, you are on your own. You are no longer protected by the protection clause. It does not say that you lose the irrevocable(!) license.Originally posted by Westacular:
This is false. WebM is an open-source project.Chris17. January 2011, 20:15
Originally posted by hellspork:
It is easy. It's already being done.That's a problem to video in general, not WebM in particular.
Andy17. January 2011, 21:34
This is beating around the bush.
1. Neither WebM nore VP8 has been submitted by Google to webstandardization origanisations for standardization. I don't recall seeing a statment from Google that they still intend to do this anywhere in the near - or far - future.
2. WebM runs on VP8. VP8 runs on On2 patents. On2 is currently owned by Google. So VP8 is not open but proprietary, and that gives a lot to think about the postion of WebM.
On to the next:
For starters this smells like a straw-man. The main statment is about VP8 (the technique 'under' WebM) while the writer refers to the WebM licence. For above statement to mean anything we should lookup the VP8 licence (superset), not that of the product depending on it (subset).
But even ignoring that, read points 1 and 2 above and draw your own conclusions. VP8 and WebM are 1.) not standardized and 2.) based on On2-patents that are Google property. So it most definately is Google controlled. And any judge will honor that.
But even if we assume that:
1.) Google does not change its mind somewhere in the future and starts asking licencefees, and
2.) we won't have a lawsuit in 2 years that will turn out to WebM 'accidentily' infringing on patents owned by others (like just about 98% or so of the videoformats), and users being forced to pay licencefees to them...
...even then Google can acutually take solitary decisions regarding development of VP8 (influencing WebM) and doing so gain at least a head start on their competition with their own products.
The bottom line of what is being defended in this article is: forgoing an accomplished industry standard (H.264) that due to its already widespread support will not go away for a very long time, while forcing uncertainty and - again - duality on the web; this over nothing else than the notion of the other (non-standard) technique being "free".
And that technique being "free" is taken on the good faith that no other patents will prove to be infringed by WebM, in combination with undying faith in the goodwill and pretty blue eyes of Google promising that they will be benevolently sweet forever and ever after. Or wait, they didn't even promise that did they?
What's being defended here is actually a Trojan Horse. And with the same dum argument too noless: "But its FREE for the taking!!!1!11! Why would we not wanna want it inside our (internet) walls??". You're already busy reeling it in cheering happily. I for one call that stupitity. Clear and simple.
Chris18. January 2011, 13:29
Originally posted by andygeerlings:
That's irrelevant to the points that are being made.Your whole post seems to revolve around the misconception that people are blindly trusting Google. This is obviously not the case. Open web advocates have universally praised Google's move.
I trust Opera and Mozilla's experts and lawyers much more than I do some random FUD spreader on the internet.
It is not proprietary since Google has given a global, irrevocable license for anyone to use WebM as they see fit. People can even fork it and make their own project.
Originally posted by andygeerlings:
The license is that Google has irrevocably given away WebM and any patents related to the technology.Originally posted by andygeerlings:
You don't have to assume anything. Google has already given everyone an unlimited and irrevocable license to WebM.Originally posted by andygeerlings:
WebM is an open-source project.Originally posted by andygeerlings:
You forgot to include the fact that it's closed, and unfit as a web standard. You also forgot that no one is forcing anyone, but that Opera, Mozilla and other well known open web advocates have openly and loudly welcomed Google's move.FUD.
FUD. The WebM license is irrevocable.
Originally posted by andygeerlings:
Somehow, I have more faith in well known open web advocates than I do in a random FUD slinger on the web.What's being defended here is a free and open technology with an irrevocable license from Google which has been universally applauded and accepted by open web advocates.
On the other hand, you have Apple fans and other closed web advocates using FUD and misinformation tactics to poison the debate.
Andy18. January 2011, 14:33
Do you have a broken record on auto-repeat in your brain or something?
The exact same straw-man over and over and over and over and over again. One says something about VP8 and you start blabbering about WebM. I'm not interested in WebM, I'm interested in that proprietry, patented, Google owned technique running under it called VP8.
Google has given a licence to, I quote: "THIS implementation of VP8". Todays implementation. Not tomorrows implementation, nor any of its successors. Google has not taken ANY staps to standardize either one.
That the web is full of idiots blindly believing in what they call Open Source (because VP8 ISN'T Open Source) and are willing to go to war over it - called "open web advocates" by you; their flock of sheep followers included - says nothing to my while I have my own brain and thousands of years of corporate political deceipt behind us to go on.
Good luck to you. Don't worry, Big Brother Google is watching over you with nothing but your best interest in mind. We'll talk again in two years or so. When you are defending the x-th buggy fork of WebM or some other alternative to be the new hailed all-promising "free" standard, after this current Trojan Horse blows up in your face. Undoubtedly using the exact same logical fallacies and dumb arguments you are using here again.
Unbelievable we are having this discussion so short after the Open Office debacle. And that at least was an established standard in the OSS world.
Chris18. January 2011, 21:43
Originally posted by andygeerlings:
VP8 is part of WebM. It was released for free with an irrevocable license.Originally posted by andygeerlings:
I fail to see the relevance. This is about open standards. H264 can't be an open standard unless it's made royalty-free. WebM can easily be standardized because it matches all of the criteria from the W3C.I guess Opera, Mozilla and all other open web advocates are part of the conspiracy, then?
Originally posted by andygeerlings:
You mean the one where they could easily create a fork?Chris18. January 2011, 21:47
Your posts seems to revolve around the misconception that people are blindly trusting Google. This is obviously not the case. Open web advocates have universally praised Google's move.
You have failed to address the point that Opera, Mozilla, and major well known open web advocates have universally praised Google's move. Do you really think you know better than Opera and Mozilla's lawyers?
You have failed to address the fact that the WebM license (which includes VP8) is irrevocable.
You have failed to address the fact that anyone can fork WebM if they wish. The W3C could create its own fork to standardize it if they wanted to.
You have failed to address the fact that h264 is unfit as an open standard, as it directly violates the W3C patent policy.
You have instead resorted to personal attacks, red herrings, and conspiracy theories.
Andy19. January 2011, 11:39
Originally posted by Slamdex:
O rly?? Please go ahead and show me that. And then especially the part excluding the "THIS implementation" limitation to that "released for free with an irrevocable license" you so happily ignored.
And I'd just love to see the part where Google relinguishes all rights to their VP8 patents, their rights to solumnly change the VP8 spec and their rights to solumnly create successors to it. Please bring it on.
Oh... wait...
Originally posted by Slamdex:
You tend to do that a lot.Originally posted by Slamdex:
Since when did your definition of an Open Standard get picked above all other, and become the standard definition the whole web shoud heed?In case you don't understand: I do not agree with your definition. And I'm not particularly alone in that.
Originally posted by Slamdex:
No. They are not. They may be part of the flock of sheep that actually believe Commercial Company Google is giving away their stuff for free and is going to benevolently want nothing in return for it.But to be honest I don't think that's the case actually. What I think is that they simply don't want H.264 to become the defacto standard, and grab any remotely viable alternative offered to try and stop that from happening. This with the idea that the alternative can be dropped offcourse if/when it turns bad. Only problems with that approach:
1) If it does get widespread you can't just drop it
2) You'll never get to a proper widely supported standard working like this
As stated before and also ignored by you: H.264 is NOT going to go away for a very long time. Not with all the investments already made worldwide in that standard - not just on the web, but in practicly every new device producing or displaying video. It may not be perfect in all respects, but a not completely perfect standard is better than duality and no standard at all. You may not like that it's not fully free, but accepting that: 1.) things you do not like are sometimes for the greater good, and 2.) that human-produced things that are for the greater good are usually not 100% free is part of growing up. Why is it is so difficult grasping this exceptionally simple concept?
And thats besides all the caveats with WebM/VP8 specifically.
Originally posted by Slamdex:
And you think that's a good thing right? Why am I not surprised. Every idiot can create a fork at will, and that's just peachy right?Only problem is that it's a disaster when you are trying to maintain a standard. When you are defining a standard you specifficly do NOT want that every idiot with an opinion can go ahead and create his own fork, because you can go sit and wait for compatibility issues.
Originally posted by Slamdex:
No, you keep dodging mine; you happily skipped just about anything that really matters, and when you actually adress a point I see your opinion without a shred of evidence to back it up (e.g: "VP8 is released for free with an irrevocable licence").Besides that you keep hiding behind the opinions of your "Open Web Advocate"-prophets/priests, supporting your "Open Source"-religion and their "all standards should be 100% free, because only 100% free is good"-dogmas. This is - besides the constant use of the straw-man - also a logical fallacy btw, called the Argument from Authority: http://kestalusrealm.wordpress.com/2010/02/06/logical-fallacies-the-argument-from-authority/
You keep chanting the same fallacies over and over again. All of that means nothing to me. I don't share your beliefsystem nor your assumptions on OS/OSS, and unlike you I don't recognize the people you appearantly so look up to as The Authority on internet/standardization matters. So I'd suggest you start bringing in some really cold hard facts.
Cutting Spoon19. January 2011, 18:10
Originally posted by Slamdex:
1) Probably another six months or more, I just checked the current status of their site. Relevant links: http://www.webmproject.org/code/roadmap/ http://www.webmproject.org/code/specs/ Bitstream PDF still contains too much raw code, interaction of components is not even understood by the development team at this time. Until they can define the actual bits in the stream, this guide is only a little useful. 3) Hardware with the additional complexity for filtering output SHOULD be on the market within six months. Hardware capable of encoding in this format MAY be available before Christmas. If the team can achieve filesizes of -5% to +20% h.264 baseline, they'll be in business. There is no way to compete against High Profile/B-frames/PsyOpts for efficiency. WebM may be better than h.264 in the case of low-res/low-bandwidth video streams.ChrisThursday, January 20, 2011 11:20:56 AM
Originally posted by andygeerlings:
Why don't you read the license and FAQ for yourself?"Google hereby grants to you a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable (except as stated in this section) patent license"
The only "exception" is if you sue someone over patents you believe WebM might be violating.
Originally posted by andygeerlings:
It isn't my definition. It's the definition of the likes of the W3C, the EU, and even Microsoft.Originally posted by andygeerlings:
You are extremely confused, it seems. Google's reasons for doing this has no relevance to whether the action is good or bad.So? That doesn't change the fact that open web advocates have universally applauded Google's move, and this includes direct competitors. It doesn't matter what Google's intentions are. What matters is the actual result of what they are doing.
Originally posted by andygeerlings:
H264 only needs to go away from the web. The problem isn't that h264 exists. It's great for other uses. But it is incompatible with an open web. It can never turn into an open web standards (unless the MPEG-LA is dissolved and gives it away for free).Originally posted by andygeerlings:
You are the one who doesn't get the concept. H264 is incompatible with an open web. Keeping it away from the web leads to a greater good: a continued open web.Originally posted by andygeerlings:
So you finally admit that WebM is that open? But now it's too open!WebM is not a standard. It can easily be standardized, though. The W3C could either have the WebM project submit it for standardization, or simply create their own fork and standardize that. No problems whatsoever. But now your tune has changed from "WebM is closed" to "WebM being open is bad, m'kay"!
Originally posted by andygeerlings:
Such as?Originally posted by andygeerlings:
The open web has got nothing to do with open source code. The open web is about open standards, and yes, open standards must be royalty-free. This is not a dogma, but a fundamental criterion for the existence of the open web.No, not at all. When I pointed out that open web advocates have universally applauded the move, it was in response to your paranoid delusional fantasies about Google. I mean, you claim to know better than lawyers from Mozilla, Opera and other well known open web advocates!
The point is that you are claiming that this is just an evil plot by Google to do something really nasty, and there's some trap somewhere. Open web advocates disagree. They don't care what Google's intentions are, but look at the actual results of what Google did. Your paranoid delusions are just FUD.
Originally posted by andygeerlings:
I realize what this is all about now. You don't even know the difference between open source and open standards!That's pretty amusing.