YouTube, HTML5, and Comparing H.264 With Theora 361
David Gerard writes "Google Chrome includes Ogg support for the <video> element. It also includes support for the hideously encumbered H.264 format. Nice as an extra, but ... they're also testing HTML5 YouTube only for H.264 — meaning the largest video provider on the Net will make H.264 the primary codec and relegate the equally good open format Ogg/Theora firmly to the sidelines. Mike Shaver from Mozilla has fairly unambiguously asked Chris DiBona from Google what the heck Google thinks it's doing."
DiBona responded with concerns that switching to Theora while maintaining quality would take up an incredible amount of bandwidth for a site like YouTube, though he made clear his support for the continued improvement of the project. Greg Maxwell jumped into the debate by comparing the quality of Ogg/Theora+Vorbis with the current YouTube implementations using H.263+MP3 and H.264+AAC. At the lower bitrate, Theora seems to have the clear edge, while the higher bitrate may slightly favor H.264. He concludes that YouTube's adoption of "an open unencumbered format in addition to or instead of their current offerings would not cause problems on the basis of quality or bitrate."
Re:repeat of ogg? (Score:4, Insightful)
Look at ThePirateBay (Score:2, Insightful)
Laziness or Ignorance? You decide (Score:1, Insightful)
I have to go with Mike Shaver on this one. At the bitrates that youtube is advertising it's videos, it's nonsense to say Ogg theora videos would have to be excessively larger. Loking at Shaver's examples and methodology I think DiBona must have been misinformed about Ogg theora.
I also have to agree with Shaver that for all intents and purposes, Google currently *is* the video king, and what Google says, is what goes. It would be disappointing of google to give some lame excuse and not do the right thing. Whatever happened to that motto of theirs, "Do no evil"? There is no reason at the current bitrates to choose a patent encumbered standard over a Free standard.
Somebody explain to me why HTML5 != evil (Score:2, Insightful)
Why is a standard being created for which Google Gears + Google Video/YouTube seems to be the "main thing" it's for? Somebody please tell me why HTML5 isn't worse than anything Microsoft ever tried to do with the browser - why it isn't platform lock-in.
This is a sincere question, because the previous HTML standards seemed to be really truly designed for multiple implementations, whereas this app-y version seems to already have an end application in mind and is working backwards to create the "standard."
Stupid stupid stupid... (Score:2, Insightful)
This is really one of those classic "only on Slashdot" stories. Whatever problems people have regarding h.264 licensing - thinking that somehow Theora support should be tantamount while h.264 support is "nice as an extra"? What color, exactly, is the sky on that world where you're living? Because if you were on this world ("Earth" we call it), you'd realize that stupidity piled on top of zealotry like that is the best, fastest way to render the <video> element irrelevant.
<sarcasm>Yeah, that'd be a great way to drive support for a web where all browsers get to compete on a level playing field.</sarcasm>
Re:repeat of ogg? (Score:3, Insightful)
how since it was free it would be easily adopted by hardware makers who didn't need to pay for the privilege.
Problem is that nobody knows if this is true or not. Major manufacturers such as Apple would rather pay the MPEG tax than deal with a potential lawsuit. I don't know if this figures into Google's thinking, but they're obviously a big target.
Re:repeat of ogg? (Score:5, Insightful)
I wasn't blaming so much as pointing out that like many blogs, slashdot can be an echo chamber. The same opinions are repeated over and over and treated as if they are held by the majority of people. I was younger then and still thought slashdot had a finger on the pulse of technology. It doesn't. It's really great as a news aggregator and the comments are often a hoot, but it isn't what I thought it was.
Re:repeat of ogg? (Score:4, Insightful)
Bingo. Theora may be equally as good, but it's trying to supplant an already-established format. 'Equally as good' isn't good enough for that: You have to be noticeably better. And Theora isn't. It offers no major advantages, and would just give YouTube headaches, as it either tried to re-encode into a choice of formats, or had to explain to people how to play the videos.
The first of those costs money, the second costs viewers. I'd bet very few people would choose the Theora choice, making the money just wasted money. And YouTube lives on it's viewers: making their site any more complicated than 'click play' is just not acceptable.
It's not worth it. Theora doesn't have enough of a benefit.
Re:Stupid stupid stupid... (Score:5, Insightful)
An open-source browser cannot legally read h264 video, that is the real issue that people seem to have trouble to understand. That is why the HTML standard only mandates a format that is not impaired by any legal restrictions: Theora.
Not being able to legally play DVDs, Blurays, connect your ipod, etc. on linux are already big problems, we don't need another one.
Re:MS won't require Silverlight. Too easy. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:repeat of ogg? (Score:1, Insightful)
What amuses me is the bias. The submitter wrote "hideously encumbered H.264 format." Hideously encumbered? Give me a break. It's as "encumbered" as MP3 is, and everybody uses MP3s.
Even Theora's developers say full H.264 edges out Theora [xiph.org]. We're just supposed to adopt Theora simply because it's not "encumbered." Well, outside the echo chamber, not a lot of people care about that. Not to mention that H.264 has hardware acceleration support.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:MS won't require Silverlight. Too easy. (Score:3, Insightful)
Why would they do that when they could just make it an "urgent system security update" in the first place?
Re:Theora FAIL (Score:4, Insightful)
Your argument subtly implies that Firefox's implementation is more secure, without providing any proof of your own assertion. Bluntly, Firefox's security record has been far from top-notch for quite some time now, and while their patch response times tend to be excellent, this doesn't change the fact that security vulnerabilities of varying severity are still frequently occuring; and we're all familiar with Microsoft's security record. I can't conclude which implementation is likely more secure.
Which is irrelevant anyway, as you've missed the point of the GP's post in the first place (did you listen?). His argument was that if the OS supports decoding the video format, which it will if it's a modern consumer OS, why should every browser then implement its own media stack to provide a service that the OS already provides? You just end up with a proliferation of software that all does exactly the same thing. Thus, you end up with more security issues (as each implementation will almost certainly have security flaws throughout its lifetime) and more bloat (code duplication, and increase in code size for each respective browser implementing its own media stack).
You can be surgical here and note that this doesn't necessarily translate to greater exploitation, just more security issues. Lots of different media stacks means different exploits, meaning different exploit code, and incompatibility is high. So, any given exploit might only be able to target a small subdomain of the overall browser market, but this is really just a security through obscurity argument, and good security practices (e.g. sandboxing) should mitigate such concerns, and all browsers should have either implemented such technologies or have it on their roadmap.
I understand the value in having a variety of different options, but implementing a solution for no express reason than to offer an alternative, is inherently pointless. It has to have an advantage (and no, being open-source isn't an advantage for most), so if the OS implementation is up to snuff, then the GP does have a valid point.
Re:Stupid stupid stupid... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Theora FAIL (Score:5, Insightful)
Where by "some tiny number of people" you mean "everyone broadcasting H.264 on the Internet, next year when the moratorium on H.264 Internet broadcast fees runs out".
Re:Stupid stupid stupid... (Score:3, Insightful)
An open-source browser cannot legally read h264 video, that is the real issue that people seem to have trouble to understand.
I keep hearing that, but I don't know why that would be so. MPEG-LA requires a fee for distribution of products. But Mozilla could pay the decoder cap fee (maxes out a $5M/year next year) and allow as many people to download a H.264-enabled Firefox as they want, no?
That is why the HTML standard only mandates a format that is not impaired by any legal restrictions: Theora.
HTML5 does not mandate any codec or format. Ogg with Vorbis and Theora were proposed, but not included in the current draft, due to concerns by (IIRC) Nokia and Apple.
Re:Theora FAIL (Score:3, Insightful)
We've been through this a couple of times now. Prove Microsoft's implementation is as secure as the one in Firefox, and I'll listen to you.
To look on the bright side, IE6 will finally die.
Yes, we have been through this before, and the conclusion was that shared libraries beat a multitude of statically compiled versions.
I'm certainly not implying that any implementation is any more insecure - they have all had their problems.
Re:repeat of ogg? (Score:3, Insightful)
And what law would that be?
What "crime" would the local DA charge you with?
What cause of action would the RIAA sue you over?
Stop spreading this moronic nonsense.
Re:Stupid stupid stupid... (Score:2, Insightful)
Mozilla could pay the decoder cap fee (maxes out a $5M/year next year)
And what about Firefox forks? Other browsers using Gecko? Konqueror? Don't care, doesn't matter?
Re:Stupid stupid stupid... (Score:1, Insightful)
Would paying this fee allow others to modify and redistribute Firefox (including the h264 implementation) without repaying the fee?
Re:Stupid stupid stupid... (Score:1, Insightful)
I keep hearing that, but I don't know why that would be so. MPEG-LA requires a fee for distribution of products. But Mozilla could pay the decoder cap fee (maxes out a $5M/year next year) and allow as many people to download a H.264-enabled Firefox as they want, no?
So, Mozilla is the only one who can legally distribute the sources and binaries of Firefox*, under your system.
How is that free, again?
*(or to make the branding issue not, replace FF with iceweasel)
Re:Theora FAIL (Score:5, Insightful)
In Linux distributions, Firefox, etc should all hook into FFmpeg, Gstreamer, etc.
On MacOS X, Safari (etc) should hook into QuickTime.
They should be acting more like any other media player: Implement the native multimedia API, rather than 'create' your own. This way all browser should be able to support as many codecs as the operating system can support.
Re:Theora FAIL (Score:5, Insightful)
the point is that the codex part of Theora is pretty settled down. Sure it's slow, but it's FREE... really Free just like png or HTML. The HTML5 group isn't mandating that people HAVE to use Theora for commercial sites. What they're really after is that ALL web browsers will support Ogg & Theora as part of the basic specification. Then everybody will be able to have multimedia functions without paying anybody royalties. It's the companies with interest in their own pony that are causing the problems because they like having everybody have to pay "somebody" for multimedia.
Re:Theora FAIL (Score:5, Insightful)
the spec is designed to be open and to use whatever the vendor wants to include. That's good. Along the way the HTML5 folks are trying to throw Free Software a bone by using Ogg and Theora as the "preferred" spec partly as a matter of philosophy and partly as a matter of pragmatism .
The big problem is Apple and Noika. Both of which build hardware and both have significant browser interests now... webkit and Qt (covering Safari, Nokia phones, and Chrome].Both also have no problem being buddy with the media companies and other patent holders. Unlike Firefox and Opera, Apple and Nokia are part of the patent club and see no need to "rock the boat" for "moral principal" reasons. Hence people keep berating Ogg & Theora simply so that they look "right" by not playing along simply because they don't want to and it conflicts with their other interests.
Re:Theora FAIL (Score:2, Insightful)
It has to have an advantage (and no, being open-source isn't an advantage for most)
That is biggest pile of crap argument out there. Why do people suffer (and do they suffer) stitching together HTML/CSS/Javascript/XMLHttpRequest on top of language/framework/app server/database abstraction layer to produce feature poor anemic applications on top of a page based metaphor that was never ever intended for such use? Programming such applications is painful, slow, and error prone. Why? Because to date, it is the only practicable way to produce platform agnostic applications. People want that; which is why the web is the biggest app platform on the planet. So what makes web apps platform agnostic? They are OPEN. If you don't get that, you don't deserve access to a computer.
Of course, "platform agnostic" gives a certain segment of the industry conniptions, so they keep trying to do anything they can to fuck things up for the rest of us.
Re:Google has a huge problem on its hands... (Score:3, Insightful)
Because financially, Google is NOT a search company, it's an advertising service.
Advertising services ultimately work best when they have quality content.
Re:Google and Firefox (Score:3, Insightful)
Stop misquoting the motto! It's "don't be evil", not "do no evil".
Right, that pretty much fits with the Google ethos now, which goes something like "sure, doing a little evil here and there is ok as long as I myself am not actually evil". It's worth keeping in mind that the gentleman who coined the original left the building some time ago.
Re:MS won't require Silverlight. Too easy. (Score:2, Insightful)