The Red O opera preservation

Developers › A Journal from Behind the Trenches

YouTube fails to deliver on HTML5 promises

January 21, 2010 · by Haavard

The vote for YouTube to support HTML5 with open video formats was a huge success.

Right now, the "Support HTML5 open web video with open formats" option has more than 12 000 votes, whereas the most popular request that is unrelated to HTML5 has about 5 000 votes. The HTML5 requests were so popular that YouTube had to hide them to give other options a chance to be seen:

We've heard a lot of feedback around supporting HTML5 and are working hard to meet your request, so stay tuned. We'll be following up when we have more information. We're answering this idea now because there are so many similar HTML5 ideas and we want to give other ideas a chance to be seen.

However...

Yesterday, YouTube's blog was updated with news on HTML5. They explained that the number one request was "that YouTube do more with HTML5", and as a "response", they pointed to their existing experimental HTML5 page which only supports H.264 encoded video...

Sadly, it seems that YouTube has failed to deliver on the most popular requests, despite claims to the contrary in their blog. Their enthusiastic words about HTML5 as an open standard decidedly ring hollow when you are required to use a closed, proprietary format to view video in the first place.

Come on, YouTube (and Google!), you can do better than that! Show us that you can walk the walk and not just talk the talk when it comes to open standards.

Readers' comments 50

Left under the original article, as archived; 1 page of comments could not be recovered.

  • Ruarí ØdegaardThursday, January 21, 2010 9:57:12 AM

    Nice post, thanks for keeping an eye on this! :wink:

  • endless loveThursday, January 21, 2010 9:58:48 AM

    :confused:

  • ZimakThursday, January 21, 2010 10:00:20 AM

    I cant visit it:

    Supported Browsers

    Right now we support browsers that support both the

  • Tenno SeremelThursday, January 21, 2010 10:45:44 AM

    «Microsoft Internet Explorer with Chrome Frame installed» is not Microsoft Internet Explorer :sherlock:

  • Charles SchlossThursday, January 21, 2010 1:47:37 PM

    Originally posted by ruario:

    Nice post, thanks for keeping an eye on this!


    +1

  • Martin RauscherThursday, January 21, 2010 1:53:09 PM

    Well the real problem is that HTML5 has no proposed video codec... But at least this should now work for the Linux users of Opera 10.50 without Flash. And that is already better than before...

    PS: I really hope we Windows users will be able to install H.264 codecs, too, as I don't expect that Google/YouTube will change their mind...

  • HaavardThursday, January 21, 2010 2:19:39 PM

    If Google are serious about open standards, they will have change their mind. Personally, I don't see Opera supporting H.264 in any way. HTML5 VIDEO is supposed to be an open standard, not based on proprietary technologies.

  • Brian HuismanThursday, January 21, 2010 2:46:53 PM

    What codec do you propose they use?

  • LuchioThursday, January 21, 2010 3:13:47 PM

    You can't blame Google for not following the standard; they are. In this particular case, it's the standard that's broken, since it does not specify any codec.

  • Tenno SeremelThursday, January 21, 2010 3:19:11 PM

    Standard does not specify a codec precisely because browser vendors(?) couldn't agree upon one. There was “Theora” written there before.

  • PengeThursday, January 21, 2010 3:49:23 PM

    Originally posted by haavard:

    Personally, I don't see Opera supporting H.264 in any way. HTML5 VIDEO is supposed to be an open standard, not based on proprietary technologies.


    But the h264 highly better than the Theora. And if the Google support a video codec, that codec will spread rapidly.

  • Lars KleinschmidtThursday, January 21, 2010 3:51:01 PM

    while h264 might be better than ogg theora, it's not a free codec. you have to pay license fees for using it and those aren't exactly small

  • Martin RauscherThursday, January 21, 2010 4:48:08 PM

    Originally posted by Penge4:

    But the h264 highly better than the Theora. And if the Google support a video codec, that codec will spread rapidly.


    It isn't better. This has been proven in many examples.

    Originally posted by haavard:

    I don't see Opera supporting H.264 in any way


    As far as I understood Opera (on Linux) simply supports every video format that the GStreamer installation on your particular system supports...?

  • Ruarí ØdegaardThursday, January 21, 2010 4:59:34 PM

    Originally posted by Hades32:

    As far as I understood Opera (on Linux) simply supports every video format that the GStreamer installation on your particular system supports...?



    Yes, but GStreamer is only native on Linux/UNIX. On the other platforms we bundle the codecs.

  • TeoThursday, January 21, 2010 7:40:42 PM

    OK, guys and gals, isn't it time to provide us with hard numbers? How much exactly does it cost to licence h264?

    And, it being an approved ISO standard, shouldn't be called "proprietary" and "closed". It is as closed as ISO C89 language. Or Unicode.

  • TeoThursday, January 21, 2010 7:52:44 PM

    Ah, I see the problem. While Opera by virtue of giving for free their product might not be liable to pay money, everyone that *broadcasts any content* must pay. That is quite expensive, indeed. And of course Opera must pay for Opera Mobile, which obviously will be transferred to me as the end user :sad: eek.

  • Martin RauscherThursday, January 21, 2010 9:01:50 PM

    Originally posted by ruario:

    Yes, but GStreamer is only native on Linux/UNIX. On the other platforms we bundle the codecs.


    I know. Maybe you could be so nice and give a statement here: http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id=374151&t=1264107607&page=1 ?

  • PurdiThursday, January 21, 2010 9:25:07 PM

    Originally posted by umbra-tenebris:

    OK, guys and gals, isn't it time to provide us with hard numbers? How much exactly does it cost to licence h264?


    Why don't you figure it out? Remember to look up the licensing terms from 2011 while you are at it. They are changing after this year, probably to become even crazier.

    Originally posted by umbra-tenebris:

    And, it being an approved ISO standard, shouldn't be called "proprietary" and "closed". It is as closed as ISO C89 language. Or Unicode.


    It's about as closed as it gets. Owned by a cabal of commercial companies who extort money by threatening with patent lawsuits.

  • Charles SchlossThursday, January 21, 2010 10:11:27 PM

    http://lifehacker.com/5453591/youtube-offers-no+flash-html5-videos-for-chrome-and-safari

    That's right—fewer system hangs, browser crashes, and other issues, and just straight-up video through HTML5 standards.



    Flash Player has been unstable since the December 2008 update for me

  • Daniel HendrycksThursday, January 21, 2010 10:15:13 PM

    Originally posted by haavard:

    Come on, YouTube (and Google!)


    This may be another stunt of theirs to use Chrome... :bomb:

  • Daniel HendrycksThursday, January 21, 2010 10:17:54 PM

    Originally posted by Martin Rauscher:

    I don't expect that Google/YouTube will change their mind...


    I do, because of Firefox. If that isn't enough, pray that Microsoft will not pay for another H.264 liscense for IE.

  • ouzowtfThursday, January 21, 2010 10:32:12 PM

    Originally posted by DanielHendrycks:

    I do, because of Firefox.


    That seems to be the only chance for an open web. Lets hope Firefox will not do a 180° turn.

  • TeoThursday, January 21, 2010 10:42:20 PM

    Originally posted by Purdi:

    OK, guys and gals, isn't it time to provide us with hard numbers? How much exactly does it cost to licence h264?

    Why don't you figure it out? Remember to look up the licensing terms from 2011 while you are at it. They are changing after this year, probably to become even crazier.


    I did, you may even read it on the post right bellow the one you cite.

    Originally posted by Purdi:

    It's about as closed as it gets. Owned by a cabal of commercial companies who extort money by threatening with patent lawsuits.



    So they'll magically stop threatening if you switch to Theora? Want to bet that 3/4 of Theora code is patented in USA? As I said in another post, even basic things like double-linked lists are patented already.

    Anyway, I *did* read the licence terms of MPEG LA and they sound awful, not only for Opera but for everyone who wants to stream video. Because if h264 takes off, then they would be required to stream in it, thus paying the fees. But this page: http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/Licensors.aspx hints at why Apple and Microsoft does not have problems with h264.

  • Ruarí ØdegaardThursday, January 21, 2010 10:47:20 PM

    Originally posted by Hades32:

    Maybe you could be so nice and give a statement here

    I am not really the best person to advise here. I am a UNIX tester. I don't even have Windows installed.

  • TeoThursday, January 21, 2010 11:03:21 PM

    This is an interesting question, does Opera sell me the 0-cost desktop edition? Because the EULA (http://www.opera.com/eula/browser/) does not explicitly say if this is a sale or lease. On the other hand, MPEG-LA require (http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Documents/AVC_TermsSummary.pdf) royalties for sold products only. So?

  • d4rkn1ghtThursday, January 21, 2010 11:51:39 PM

    Originally posted by DanielHendrycks:

    This may be another stunt of theirs to use Chrome...


    Agree 100% They're pulling a Microsoft on us.

  • Daniel HendrycksFriday, January 22, 2010 12:34:31 AM

    Originally posted by d4rkn1ght:

    They're pulling a Microsoft on us.


    :lol:

  • leighmanFriday, January 22, 2010 12:50:37 AM

    Sigh :sad:
    Though looking at the blog announcement I can't see much support :p:

  • Charles SchlossFriday, January 22, 2010 2:01:23 AM

    Vimeo Joins the HTML5 Party With New Player
    http://vimeo.com/blog:268


    On the last link lead me to
    http://diveintohtml5.org/video.html#what-works


    Any thoughts on: Video on the Web - Dive Into HTML5, which is the last link?

  • MyOpera team, please fix this!Friday, January 22, 2010 4:18:10 AM

    Originally posted by Teo:

    OK, guys and gals, isn't it time to provide us with hard numbers? How much exactly does it cost to licence h264?

    This is what I've found http://www.streamingmedia.com/r/printerfriendly.asp?id=11011

  • PurdiFriday, January 22, 2010 9:13:24 AM

    Originally posted by umbra-tenebris:

    So they'll magically stop threatening if you switch to Theora?


    They can't threaten you if you use Theora. But if H.264 takes over the web, this cabal will have amazing powers to extort everyone else and slow down innovation to a crawl.

  • Krio LythFriday, January 22, 2010 10:55:13 AM

    Originally posted by Hades32:

    It isn't better. This has been proven in many examples.


    I only found one: http://web.mit.edu/xiphmont/Public/theora/demo7.html
    And it does not say "Thoera is better", it says "Theora is approaching h264".

    Anyway, I'd prefer a way of viewing any content that codecs on my computer could play, while providing a built-in support for Theora.

  • Anthony LPGFriday, January 22, 2010 4:00:08 PM

    Originally posted by Haavard:

    Come on, YouTube (and Google!), you can do better than that! Show us that you can walk the walk and not just talk the talk when it comes to open standards.



    Sure they can Haavard, but all this matter is related to market control, based on the "private war" between Microsoft and Google... Their intentions are to far from be a realistic in what we need, or helpfully to others, besides just about them.. Nasty way to compete, isn't ?

    Anti-Open Standards practices, have been a good motive for "keep their products on top" ::l:; (like MS did with IE) and (Google trying harder with Chrome).. There is nothing about codes or anything also. :mad:


    Originally posted by Martin Rauscher:


    I don't expect that Google/YouTube will
    change their mind...


    Originally posted by Daniel James Hendrycks:


    I do, because of Firefox. If that isn't enough, pray that Microsoft will not pay for another H.264 liscense for IE.


    :up: Me too Hendrycks, in fact they are who maybe wanna start praying, cuz if they "brilliant mind" don't follow Open Standards", I bet you that.. « the past 10 years of piracy attacks.. is just a 10% compared of what is coming upon (both) MS and Google ».

  • kailapisFriday, January 22, 2010 5:53:00 PM

    Google can't do away with H.264 simply because H.264 is already entrenched both in software and hardware. There's too many devices to ignore that have dedicated hardware H.264 decoders built in like cellphones. Safari on Macs and IE on Windows (when IE introduces support for

  • Cutting SpoonFriday, January 22, 2010 7:48:57 PM

    Theora does not have the same level of commercially viable automated transcoding optimizations. This increases the cost to the operator. If similar quality requires more bandwidth and storage space, this also increases the cost to the operator. The best solution for h.264 would be examining the liability exposure of x.264, and adopting that if the specifics appear legally viable.

  • TeoFriday, January 22, 2010 8:06:46 PM

    So, for the sites that want to serve video, there are two nasty choices:
    1. pay mpeg la patent taxes which increase every 5 years and do NOT guarantee that there are no more patents to pay for, so you are unsure when you will be served with a patent lawsuit
    2. pay for additional storage or cpu/memory to encode on the fly theora/vorbis video/audio, and be unsure when you will be served with a patent lawsuit; and additionally be sure that most lucrative non-desktop devices cannot use your content - that would be all the iPhones, Zunes, Nexus Ones and so on and so forth.

    Frankly, I do not want to serve video on my site :sad:

  • PurdiFriday, January 22, 2010 8:28:06 PM

    Originally posted by hellspork:

    Theora does not have the same level of commercially viable automated transcoding optimizations. This increases the cost to the operator. If similar quality requires more bandwidth and storage space, this also increases the cost to the operator.


    Automated optimizations can be fixed. It will still be cheaper than the H.264 extortion fees.

  • Anthony LPGSaturday, January 23, 2010 5:16:35 AM

    Come on folks.. x264 is out because it relies too much on H.264. :devil:

    I guess the best solution they can make off it, is the possibility of supporting multiple formats (in the tag) and then.. we’ve got our open standard, free to all :bigsmile:, and we’ve got our closed standard :cry: $

    Originally posted by Purdi:

    Automated optimizations can be fixed. It will still be cheaper than the H.264 extortion fees.


    QFT :up:
    .

  • Anthony LPGSaturday, January 23, 2010 5:17:57 AM

    Come on folks.. x264 is out because it relies too much on H.264. :devil:

    I guess the best solution they can make off it, is the possibility of supporting multiple formats (in the tag) and then.. we’ve got our open standard, free to all :bigsmile:, and we’ve got our closed standard :cry: $

    Originally posted by Purdi:

    Automated optimizations can be fixed. It will still be cheaper than the H.264 extortion fees.


    QFT :up:

  • Cutting SpoonSunday, January 24, 2010 1:21:23 AM

    Hmmm....This is why I am unsure about the specifics of the x.264 implementation. For example, .DivX was engineered from the study of MPEG-4. It was not sued out of existence, but it is a branded and licensed codec in its own right.

    The big thing for any "Open" codec is a development freeze. You heard me: make it good enough and stop working on it. When a company incorporates industry-standard mp4, divx, or h264 codecs, they are expected to simply work. This is a difficult thing for Free-Open-Source-Software (FOSS) to compete with.

    Don't misunderstand; nothing would make me happier than a solid breakthrough in this area. I just can't see it happening within the next year.

  • Saurabh KumarSunday, January 24, 2010 2:45:04 PM

    Theora is just On2 's VP3 codec. Google has bought On2 and it may turn out that they may may open source VP6 OR VP7 and that may well replace Theora. Or they may just pursue VP6 OR 7 as a closed codec to be used in Youtube. In that case bad news for Theora,h.264 and the open web.

  • DillonMonday, January 25, 2010 7:34:36 AM

    @Cutting Spoon: .divx is a container, in which divx placed their video, which used mpeg-4 ASP. Old Divx and Xvid are implementations of Mpeg-4 ASP. x264 is an implementation of Mpeg-4 ASP. Divx pays licensing for their mpeg-4 implementation just like anyone else. What you're thinking of is how they began programming their encoder by reverse engineering the microsoft encoder. That isn't them skirting mpeg-4 licenses, which they still pay for.

    @Saurabh Kumar: They'd probably try to use VP8 (On2's newest encoder). Regardless, VP6, VP7, and VP8 still use patented technologies for which license would have to be purchased. The reason because VP3 was able to be given to Xiph was because On2 negotiated for all the of the known remaining patents on it to be removed (including the ones they owned).

  • Charles SchlossTuesday, January 26, 2010 3:03:12 AM

    More:

    HTML5 video and H.264 – what history tells us and why we’re standing with the web
    http://www.0xdeadbeef.com/weblog/2010/01/html5-video-and-h-264-what-history-tells-us-and-why-were-standing-with-the-web/

  • Charles SchlossTuesday, January 26, 2010 4:40:06 AM

    Start the voting:

    Please support Theora in HTML5 video (for Firefox, Chromium and Opera)
    http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/youtube/thread?tid=29ada87c13c438c2&hl=en

  • Daniel HendrycksTuesday, January 26, 2010 12:55:06 PM

    Originally posted by Charles Schloss:

    Please support Theora in HTML5 video (for Firefox, Chromium and Opera)

    http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/youtube/thread?tid=29ada87c13c438c2&hl=en


    I don't think voting should be in a Google site. THey'll just remove it again. http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/oggandyoutube/

  • ouzowtfTuesday, January 26, 2010 3:02:31 PM

    Originally posted by DanielHendrycks:

    THey'll just remove it again.


    They did not remove anything, they just ignored it.

  • Anthony LPGTuesday, January 26, 2010 4:48:36 PM

    Originally posted by Penge4:

    But the h264 highly better than the Theora... ..And if the Google support a video codec, that codec will spread rapidly.


    Really :confused: .. plz do not intended to deceive anyone or make'm a victim of the same outdated and/or simply inaccurate information that has fooled many others that claims ("H.264 is wide better them Theora :confused: ) :mad: ..share your sources plz. <end of :clown: entry /> :p:

    Back on topic :smile: ... This matter has been around for a wile, I found this article here, from Jun 13th 2009, Chris DiBona of Google, made a "remarkable claim" on the WhatWG mailing list. :mad:

    Originally posted by Chris DiBona:

    ..If [YouTube] were to switch to theora and maintain even a semblance of the current YouTube quality it would take up most available bandwidth across the Internet...



    Claims like these without demanding substantiation, are just unfair and unreasonable. Cuz Theora is competitive and even superior to some of the files that Google is distributing today on YouTube.. So?

  • Cutting SpoonTuesday, January 26, 2010 7:21:41 PM

    @Dillon: So there are patents on the method itself? Not just the proprietary code, but the very nature of its output? So all of these other codecs are differently coded implementations of one method, and must all pay royalties? In this case, if one must pay royalties no matter what, which implementation is more efficient or affordable? DivX looks like one winner, with its relatively broad adoption in home electronics. Vanilla MPEG-4 also has strong support, though more in handheld media players.

    @Anthony LPG: The question is not a matter of POTENTIAL performance, but what has been accomplished in the field of automation. YouTube's choices are commonly based on analysis of hardware costs and bandwidth costs. Both quality levels offered on YouTube have tradeoffs against the ideal. This situation will not change easily, perhaps more powerful servers will make the option feasible.

  • Daniel HendrycksTuesday, January 26, 2010 10:00:52 PM

    Originally posted by ouzoWTF:

    Originally posted by DanielHendrycks:
    They'll just remove it again.

    They did not remove anything, they just ignored it.


    Really?(Actual question, not trying to have the tone of Purdi)
    That option for "Support HTML5 open web video with open formats" is no longer available. That was the one with over 12,00 supporters.

  • ouzowtfTuesday, January 26, 2010 10:39:46 PM

    Originally posted by DanielHendrycks:

    Really?(Actual question, not trying to have the tone of Purdi)

    That option for "Support HTML5 open web video with open formats" is no longer available. That was the one with over 12,00 supporters.


    I just checked if the voted results were there as you asked for them. And they were.

About this article

Published inA Journal from Behind the Trenches
DateJanuary 21, 2010
AuthorHaavard
Tagsgoogle, youtube, standards, html5, h.264, open, video, theora, fail
OriginalInternet Archive

The Red O » Developers » Haavard » YouTube fails to deliver on HTML5 promises

Browsers

Add-ons

Services

Developers

Help

Company

About · Contribute · Legal theredo.org
The Red O is an independent, non-commercial preservation project, not affiliated with Opera Norway AS. Opera is a trademark of its owner.