Google To Push WebM With IE9, Safari Plugins 413
surveyork writes with this "new chapter in the browser wars: 'Google in a defense of its decision to pull H.264 from Chrome's HTML5 revealed that it will put out WebM plugins for Internet Explorer 9 and Safari. Expecting no official support from Apple or Microsoft, Google plans to develop extensions that would load its self-owned video codec. No timetable was given.' So Google gets started with their plan for world-wide WebM domination. They'll provide WebM plugins for the browsers of the H.264-only league, so in practice, all major browsers will have WebM support — one way or the other. Machiavellian move?"
Yes, Machiavellien, quite (Score:5, Insightful)
How sinister of them, trying to compete with a proprietary codec by releasing free plugins for other vendors' browsers to play their unencumbered format.
Look out Lex Luthor, Eric Schmidt is stealing your schtick.
Re: (Score:3)
-Concerned Citizens for the MPEG LA
Re:Yes, Machiavellien, quite (Score:5, Informative)
So let's see: WebM is the container.
--- VP8 is the video
--- Vorbis is the audio
Google also has a WebP standard based on VP8, to replace GIFs/JPEGs - wonder why they're not pushing that too? Ya know: Remove image support from their Chrome. (shrug)
MPEG4/h264 vs. VP8 comparison (h264 slightly better - specially on low bitrate connections):
- http://compression.ru/video/codec_comparison/h264_2010/vp8_vs_h264.html [compression.ru]
HE-AACplus vs. Vorbis (HE-AAC wins):
- http://listening-tests.hydrogenaudio.org/sebastian/mf-48-1/results.htm [hydrogenaudio.org]
JPEG vs. WebP (WebP wins):
- http://englishhard.com/2010/10/01/real-world-analysis-of-googles-webp-versus-jpg/ [englishhard.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The key here is that all the supported image formats have no known patent threats, so Google does not really care about images. They offer WebP simply because they can, and It was already well known in some circles that modern video compression algorithm's key frame compression was better than JPEG. (Although JPEG2000 can give many lossy image compression formats a run for their money)
With H.264 though the patent royalties on H.264 makes many small time content producers very wary, and does not help with ke
Re: (Score:3)
Noone really cares about image formats anymore. JPEG, PNG and even GIF are good enough for their purposes, supported everywhere and are old enough that future patent issues are unlikely.
The same can't be said for video :( the MPEG LA members are pushing towards a world where users have to pay royalties on video encoding and decoding software and where free software has to chose between not playing and infringing patents.
Google is pushing against that and I really hope they will be sucessful.
Re: (Score:2)
Except VP8 is a proprietary codec (WebM is just a container), while H.264 is an open standard. That is, the definition of VP8 is entirely defined and controlled by Google, while the definition of MPEG4 is controlled by the ISO standards organization.
This is of course complicated by the fact that H.264 is crippled by patents that require licensing fees of anyone wishing to legally distribute in the US, while VP8 is theoretically free of such troubles because Google released all related patents into the publ
Re: (Score:3)
Uh, it's very likely that WebM infringes on patents, so saying it's unencumbered is wrong.
Well, Google says it doesn't, and they've studied WebM in some detail. So either they're stupid, or they have some kind of plan whereby, somehow, patents on WebM won't cause them problems. I can't think what such a plan would be, but if you have any suggestions, I'd be interested to hear them.
Re: (Score:3)
Google may have determined that any patents WebM infringes are too weak to stand up to a determined attack in court and so will not be enforced against them. Owners of weak patents often license them at just below the cost of destroying them in court. Since Google is not going buy a license at any price...
Re: (Score:3)
Since Google is not going buy a license at any price...
To clarify (as I understand things):
For a patent that might be applicable to WebM, Google would be happy to buy a worldwide royalty free-perpetual public license (applicable to any person or company) that permits everything WebM (encoding, streaming, decoding, etc), if such a license were available at he right price.
But they will not buy any traditional royalty-based, or per person/company based license, and the patent holders are not interested in offering such a non-traditional license at all.
Re: (Score:3)
What doesn't infringe patents? WebM is good news imo since it will have Google's pockets behind it and firefox, opera etc. won't have to dig deep to license h264; if done correctly this solves one huge problem for the little guys.
Re:Yes, Machiavellien, quite (Score:5, Insightful)
No, but most, if not all, of the major patent holders are part of MPEG-LA.
Try reading the news. It's been, what, two months since someone who wasn't an MPEG-LA member was suing H.264 distributors for patent infringement?
So far we have VP8, with no license fee, which no one has been sued for distributing. Theora, with no license fee, which no one has been sued for distributing. Dirac, with no license fee, which no one has been sued for distributing. H.264, with a license fee, which several people with paid-up licenses have been sued for distributing.
Both Google (using VP8) and the BBC[1] (using Dirac) have deep pockets and would be a good target for patent lawsuits by people with valid patents in their CODECs, but so far H.264 is the only one that has been a target.
[1] The BBC uses Dirac for world-service and BBC America things as well, so has offices in jurisdictions where a software patent suit could be filed.
Re: (Score:2)
> it's very likely that WebM infringes on patents, so saying it's unencumbered is wrong.
Where are the lawsuits?
Re: (Score:2)
Where are the lawsuits?
If you had any patents that you believe WebM is infringing on, suing _now_ build be totally stupid. You would wait until WebM is a lot, lot bigger.
"very likely"? (Score:2)
Or if you are an astroturfer, the source of your "sponsorship" will do.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
On two accounts.
1. An proprietary codec can never be freedom. So you can't loose any freedom by having it removed
2. Cromium is free software. If you like you can put H264 right back in there.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, either the poster doesn't understand what Machiavellien means or they don't understand the situation at hand.
Yes, and if not for extending a program in ways not necessarily intended or endorsed by the software's vendor, why have plug-ins at all? Besides, Microsoft, Apple and the rest are perfectly free to release plug-ins for Chrome that handle their desired formats.
This isn't Machiavellian so much as it is competitive. The stakes are high.
Start your betting (Score:2, Interesting)
Something tells me that MS and Apple (and especially, Apple) will do all they can to break the plugin's functionality.
Re: (Score:2)
Something tells me that MS and Apple (and especially, Apple) will do all they can to break the plugin's functionality.
Apple might be able to get away with it, but MS will always have that "monopoly" monkey on its back.
Re: (Score:3)
They already did. Notice the hundreds of millions of iOS devices that Apple won't let you install any plug in for Mobile Safari.
Apple is gonna fight against WebM every step of the way. So will many others. All Google is doing is prolonging
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Start your betting (Score:5, Insightful)
Do people think before posting idiotic comments like this?
My Mac already has many codecs installed that Apple doesn't officially support. Nothing Apple can do about it. What's one more?
What incentive would MS or Apple have in blocking it?
Re:Start your betting (Score:5, Insightful)
Something tells me that MS and Apple (and especially, Apple) will do all they can to break the plugin's functionality.
Did you miss the part [windowsteamblog.com] where MS had already announced that IE9 will handle WebM just fine provided the codec is installed, a few months ago?
In its HTML5 support, IE9 will support playback of H.264 video as well as VP8 video when the user has installed a VP8 codec on Windows.
It's about as clear as it gets. It also dodges any patent issues nicely as far as MS is concerned (if MPEG LA wants to sue Google, they are given a clear line of fire since Google is the one making and distributing the codec).
Okay, good... (Score:2)
Well, more good news for IE and Safari users. Not sure this makes too much sense though. Basically Google is removing a feature from their own browser, and then adding a new feature to their competitors. I guess that settles it, Google really believes that WebM is the superior codec, and is willing to destroy themselves to prove it. Most people are probably going to be happy using browsers that have both codecs, but hey, maybe there's some crazy Xanatos Gambit here that I'm just not seeing.
Re: (Score:2)
Most people are probably going to be happy using browsers that have both codecs
Which browsers would those be? I thought Chrome was the only one with both WebM and H.264.
Re: (Score:3)
Firefox has h264 added on with the MS WMP plugin, IE and Safari will get WebM via the Google plugin. Only Chrome doesn't have h264.
Foot, meet gun.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Google really believes that WebM is the superior codec, and is willing to destroy themselves to prove it.
The absolute worst thing that will happen to Google because of this is that Chrome will die, and that's extremely unlikely. Google doesn't make money on Chrome, they make money with advertising. Google will not destroy themselves with this move.
Hah (Score:2, Funny)
..Microsoft responds by releasing an H.264 plugin for Chrome
There's already an H.264 plug-in (Score:3)
DivX HiQ already does cross-browser H.264 in MKV/MP4/MOV with MP3 and AAC support, and ASP in AVI/DivX.
http://labs.divx.com/node/14711 [divx.com]
It also supports DXVA acceleration for H.264, and it's available on Mac too. It's still in beta and has its quirks but given the discussion I'm surprised it's not mentioned more :)
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft already released a plugin for Firefox that gives it H.264. It's not unreasonable to speculate that they could do the same for Chrome. Its usage isn't that rare, really.
What's a little weird about this is it's my understanding that IE9 won't need a plugin to run WebM anyway. It just needs the WebM codec installed, which is not installed by default. So either way it requires some software distribution, but "plugin" is inaccurate.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, looks like it's Windows 7 (and presumably later) only, which I didn't realize. Let me amend that by saying that it's not unreasonable to speculate that Microsoft might release a plugin that lets Chrome do H.264 on Windows 7.
But I'm sticking to my guns here, because XP users also don't get IE9, so Google isn't writing any WebM plugins for XP. The only video-tag codec plugin on XP AFAIK will be Safari, and, well, Safari on XP? Seems uncommon and likely to shrink as XP marketshare shrinks in general.
Of course it will work (Score:5, Funny)
After all, we've seen how Silverlight has come to dominate the web.
Re: (Score:2)
Bandwidth != usage. Netflix is not even in the top 100 of web sites. It uses lots of bandwidth because it is a video source.
Re: (Score:3)
In North America, the largest single consumer of internet bandwidth is netflix, at about 20% of the total. Netflix uses Silverlight.
I'm curious about this. Netflix uses Silverlight-wrapped h.264 for streaming to computers. But does anyone know if they use that wrapper for streaming to devices like the Tivo, Roku, PS3, etc.? I have my doubts simply because other applications that stream to Tivo seem to be using a more straightforward h.264/mp4 package.
The reason this matters is I expect the amount of traffic Netflix streams to devices dwarfs the traffic it streams to computers.
Strategic Interests (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Developers should pay close attention to how Microsoft ... react to this
Already did [windowsteamblog.com], a while ago.
Honestly.. (Score:2)
Symmetry ? (Score:2)
Won't Chome and Opera also have plugins for H.264 ? Unless those are banned, this
doesn't seem very profound.
Re: (Score:3)
So far as I know, Chrome doesn't have an open codec architecture for HTML5 video. Safari does (it uses QuickTime). It's not entirely clear about IE9 - it looks like it uses the OS-provided H.264, and it will also use VP8 if installed, but whether it will pick up other codecs (e.g. Theora) was not stated.
Opera is interesting. They use GStreamer - on all platforms. On Linux, the system one is used, so if you have H.264 decoder installed (e.g. paid one from Fluendo, or possibly x264 would work too?), it should
"Machiavellian move?" (Score:5, Insightful)
So lets recap:
* Mozilla and Google push for a video tag in HTML that is unencumbered by patents. Apple and Microsoft will not go along.
* Google acquires On2, and promotes it as an open standard, including promises to defend it in court.
* Google promises to release plugins that allow IE9 and Safari to decode their codec in the two browsers which won't support it natively. No one is forced to use their open standard, but it is now an option across all browsers that implement the video tag.
If buying a codec so you can open it, make it freely available to everyone, and defend it from patent attack is Machiavellian, than how would you describe Apple and Microsoft's work to make sure the only way to play a video is the use of a proprietary format?
Re: (Score:3)
h.264 is proprietary in theory you have to license the decoder and the encode
Only if you have a very unusual definition of "proprietary." In this context, proprietary means "owned or controlled by one company." H.264 is an open standard.
Its only free to stream it, if I understand correctly.
"Proprietary" has nothing to do with how much something costs in monetary terms. It's absolutely possibly to have an open standard that costs money. Just as it is possible to have a proprietary format that doesn't cost any money.
Google is not retaining flash Crome does not support flash, its plugin just like it is for every other browser.
No, it doesn't. Chrome is the only browser with a built-in Flash renderer that doesn't rely on a plugin. Google ships Flash
Re: (Score:3)
H.264 is part of MPEG-4, which is an ISO/IEC standard. It's an open standard.
VP8 and WebM are under the sole control of Google. They are both proprietary.
The suggestion that they don't own them is delusional.
There seems to be much confusion on Slashdot about what "open standards" actually means.
Why not take the easy way? (Score:2)
A brilliant move! (Score:5, Insightful)
We learned an important and valuable lesson with MSIE and HTML. We learned that Microsoft's implementation of HTML/CSS is very, very broken. However, because at one time, the majority of users used MSIE, web developers needed to design their content primarily for MSIE. And since the majority of content was for MSIE, users mostly used MSIE. And because most users used MSIE, content was designed for MSIE... and so on and so on in that looping fashion.
So, with HTML5, we have a chance to start anew. We should ALL be adhering to the same standards so that everyone gets a fair shake. But already, there is positioning, posturing, claim staking and all manner of politics threatening the HTML5 fresh start.
Google wants a good cleam fresh start. Why? Because they are primarily content providers, that's why. Their stake is more closely aligned with the users of the internet as we share a common interest -- good, usable content, without irregularities or problems. Good for us; good for Google.
So Google, with this move, is trying to break the looping cycle I described above. If the most commonly supported format out there is WebM, the content creators will design for the most commonly supported format! It will not matter if browsers also support a second format, only that WebM is supported.
Now will Microsoft and even Apple play the "only MSIE/Safari is supported" game with their content? Most definitely. There is still room for the other players to spoil it for everyone else. But this is a pretty good strategy to get content creators to help break the cycle before it starts.
Smell a lot of "if" coming off that plan (Score:2)
If the most commonly supported format out there is WebM, the content creators will design for the most commonly supported format!
A nice fantasy.
However you really gloss heavily over that "if", because when has ANY browser plugin been "the most commonly supported format".
Never mind that they can't distribute plugins for iOS devices, users of which consume enough video that they have forced the content providers into the position where h.264 is the de-facto standard for deploying video to the web today.
What else should do? (Score:2)
The machiavellian move would have been NOT to release those plugins, and from one day to the next i.e. move Youtube to WebM, forcing Apple/Windows users to move to Chrome or Firefox if they want to see something embedded in most of internet content. If they want to push a internet standard, better that they provide free, updated, for every platform and browser, plugins to show them.
In the other hand, thats very different with what Microsoft did in almost everything they released as "open","standard","inte
Google's hubris (Score:2, Interesting)
Google is exhibiting reckless behaviour because they think they're invincible, and it's all going to come back and bite them in the ass really soon:
1) Google "borrowing" Overture's ad-search business model, and paying them off not to sue them. I guess they got away with this one.
2) Google "borrowing" Sun's Java patented IP for use in Android/Dalvik with a Java-like language because they didn't want to pay for J2ME, not to mention the GPL code they slapped with an Apache license header. Oracle is fending
YouTube? (Score:2)
Even more IE plugins from Google? (Score:5, Interesting)
So.. I guess Chrome Frame was a success then? Strangely how the stats don't reflect that at all.
so let's see how the future will play out then...
On one side of the ring: H.264
* Solid native support on the default browser of Windows - IE9.
* Solid native support on the default browser of OSX - Safari.
* Solid support on the rest of the browsers via the ubiquitous (95%+) and well known by the public Flash player.
* Native support on mobiles.
* Formally approved standard by ISO and IEC
* Guaranteed free distribution on the web for free content, minor free for paid content.
* Vast amounts of existing H.264 content, widely used in video editing apps, broadcasting, recording motion cameras and so on.
On the other side of the ring: WebM
* No native support on the default browser of Windows - IE9.
* No native support on the default browser of OSX - Safari.
* Solid native support on the rest of the browsers.
* Spotty support on only some mobiles (don't expect it on Apple devices, Microsoft is on the fence).
* Not formally approved standard by anybody, just an open code dump at this point.
* Free to use, but questionable future if challenged by MPEG LA and others.
* Almost no existing WebM content, spotty or missing support in video editing apps, not used in broadcasting, not used in motion cameras and so on.
So uhmm, yeah, Google. I wish you guys good luck.
Re:Even more IE plugins from Google? (Score:5, Insightful)
Safari on Mac will fight the fight for H264 on the desktop all by itself. Ouch.
Flash supporting H264 is irrelevant. Or rather, it's a good thing, because Flash can be used as a fallback while WebM takes over the market. Future versions of Flash will support WebM anyway.
WebM will be natively supported on all future Android devices. That's a huge market, and will probably be the dominant mobile OS.
You are clearly biased against Google and WebM. You refuse to look at the reality of the situation. Apple fanboy, perhaps?
Re: (Score:2)
You are clearly biased against Google and WebM. You refuse to look at the reality of the situation. Apple fanboy, perhaps?
I'm not biased against Google, I'm biased against their poor choices of late, primarily because they seem like poor choices. And maybe slightly desperate.
May I remind you the "reality of the situation" is yet about to happen. I know that from the point of view on Slashdot, every next year is the Year of the Linux on the Desktop, and so on, but although the future of WebM seems so simple and clear to you, I wouldn't call any bets yet if I were you.
I'm trying to point out that Google is climbing steeper and s
Re: (Score:2)
Mod this guy up, but he forgot to list the fact that H.264 support are on a number of set top boxes, built into DVD and blu-ray players, and even now supported directly by many TV's. WebM may get in to TV eventually, but the one I just bought has support for H.264. I encoded a movie yesterday from iMovie, plugged it into the TV's SD slot and it played. I'm not planning on buying a new TV for a while so...
I still have a number of friends who are videographers and WebM hasn't even hit their radar yet. If
Re:Even more IE plugins from Google? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's strange that so few people have figured it out.
Google is in the strange position that it got more bandwidth, more servers, more brains and more money than they honestly know what to do with.
So they use the money on more talent, servers and bandwidth, and let the people work on their own ideas part of the company time. Anything that looks even remotely useful (strengthen their position, gaining mindshare, get their ads in more places) gets thrown out there.
Examples:
Gmail. Google Wave. WebM. WebP. Chrome. Chrome Frame. Google Maps. Google Apps. Google Reader. Android. Translate. Android App Inventor. Google Body. Google Mars. Google Earth. Calendar. Code. Groups. News. Books. Picasa. Docs. Analytics. Website optimizer. SketchUp. Voice. Sky maps. Google Video. Trends. Talk. Buzz. iGoogle. Goggles. Scribe. Code search.
They're throwing an insane amount of random stuff on the wall, and then see what sticks. Some does, some does not.
They have more resources than they can reasonably use, and this is the result. Have an idea that looks fun? Some example code? Good, here are some money, servers and practically unlimited bandwidth. See if you can make it work. A bit later Google Cakes pops up, and maybe it will find a use. And Google earns some more information and mindshare. And a new place to splash targeted ads.
In the end, they make even more money, which they then put in talent, bandwidth and servers.. And the cycle continue. I sometimes wonder if they will hit a limit, or it will just go on and on.
Re: (Score:3)
Excuse me, IE9 hasn't even been released yet. Windows 7 has what, ten percent market share? And Windows Vista another ten percent? And the percentage of Windows 7 / Vista users who use IE instead of Firefox/Chrome/Opera/Safari is what, fifty percent maybe?
So if IE9 were released tomorrow, it would add native H.264 video tag support to a whole ten percent of the market at best.
All that aside, whatever its temporary technical merits, H.264 is epitome of an "evil empire" codec, and that is why it must die. "P
But how will it be encoded? (Score:2)
OK, so it may eventually work in all browsers if everybody installs the plugins.
But how do you encode the stuff in the first place? I'm sure I can do it with ffmpeg, but what about the normal people who export videos?
They are used to Quicktime exports from Final Cut Pro, or through Compressor, or maybe MPEG Streamclip or Handbrake. If Quicktime doesn't support it, then the simple direct export from FCP, or using MPEG Streamclip will not work. I wonder how this problem will be addressed.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:But how will it be encoded? (Score:5, Interesting)
Define "important" & "near".
Re: (Score:2)
I was probably a bit unclear. By "normal people who export videos", I didn't mean just "normal people.". I meant the normal users of Final Cut, Compressor, and the like. The ones I know already struggle and call me for help when they need to export an H264 or make a DVD. I their usual tools don't have easy presets for WebM, that wil definitely be a problem.
Is it really a plugin or extension? (Score:2)
I thought WebM support in IE9 was as easy as installing it as a system codec. No browser plugin would be required. Am I wrong?
Not Machiavellian at all - brute force approach (Score:5, Insightful)
The summary makes it out to be some kind of subtle plot on the part of Google. Nothing could be further from the truth.
In fact what Google is doing is plain as day. They are trying to convert the whole of the web over to WebM and VP8, formats they control. This gives them an advantage, I don't even really blame them for trying. In fact had they done this a few years later I'd be in support of it from the standpoint of trying to establish a more open video format/codec.
At the moment though, the industry is trying to get people behind HTML5 including the video tag. Googles premature move to try to get everyone behind VP8 means that no sane content provider or web site would support the video tag, since it's such a mess as to what browsers will support BY DEFAULT. You can build all the plugins you like, but you can't force people to install them and you certainly cannot deploy them to iOS devices.
So with this early move, Google has screwed over two groups. Those who wanted to see HTML5 video tag advanced, and those who wanted to push for a truly open codec. Yes, this move harms VP8 by insuring that most sites across the web will use Flash players, and following logically from that will only encode in h.264. After all, if you only need to encode once why would you bother with another format?
If they had waited to get the video tag established, for Chrome to gain even more marketshare (it has a really good momentum), to get solid hardware support lined up for VP8 playback/encoding (because people encode movies on devices too), and for Android to get a huge mass of devices in peoples hands. THEN at that point, Google could do what they are now, say that Android is not supporting h.264 and neither is Chrome - and basically force dual encoding on content providers, and eventually other browser and device makers (like Apple) might well convert to WebM.
See, the term "Machiavellian" implies a crafty and ruthless plan involving many prongs. I have outlined one such above. But what Google is doing now, is not Machiavellian in the slightest. It is the tantrum of a three-year old demanding that everyone use Googles codec NOW, users and HTML5 and content provider storage/encoding costs be damned.
I have backed Google many times in the past, said that basically they were a good company at heart. I still think they are but for the setback they have caused in forcing us all into a new dark age of flash players for video across the web - for that, I have dropped Chrome, and switched all my default search engines to Bing *shudder*. I think Google has somehow totally lost focus on what is good for the industry or the consumer, and are going totally now for what is good for Google and no-one else.
Other way around (Score:3)
Without an effort like this, the video tag would be dead in the water. Forever.
Wrong. The video tag was starting to see adoption, because all video has unified behind h.264, so it made the use of the video tag actually work across all browsers. There are multiple implementations today; I know because I use them.
Now there is no video codec standard, hence everyone will switch bac to Flash players because THAT is now the common denominator that can play the h.264 video that everyone is encoding and using.
The Platform Battle (Score:2)
You guys cheer, but for Google, this is only a part of a bigger game: the platform battle. If Google loses the platform users access them through, which is currently mostly desktop browsing, their core business: ads (with search) may fizzle out very quickly.
Hence why their hurried entering into markets that are quite foreign to them, such as mobile (Android), browsers (Chrome) and, somehow, also video codecs (WebM). With their politically clumsy attempts at hedging bets that keep the platform available to t
Re:The Platform Battle (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't know what you drugs you might be on but I want some. Since when have Microsoft and Apple been Google's friends? Microsoft and Google started a little cold war around the time Google first became a verb, and it became a hot war with the release of Bing. They have been slugging it out ever sense and this is just another round. Apple and Google have not exactly been at each others throats they way Google and Microsoft has but the have very different interests, Google wants the browser to be the Application, Apple wants to essentially go back to the way things were in the early days and push a bunch of tiny network aware Apps. Only this time Apple wants to sell you those Apps, and wants you to search for them in their App store. That does not leave much room for Google, who wants you doing as much as possible on the Web.
I don't think Google has a bad relationship with the Mozilla foundation, I guess Chrome is competition but I doubt there is much anger over it. Google has done a lot to boost Mozilla.org products over the years and if anything I am sure Mozilla sees this push for WebM as a big plus. They can't ship a built in H.264 decoder but they can ship WebM so as a user I am pretty happy about this and I would guess the developers are too.
I don't care to speculate about MPEG LA, I don't know about and history Google has with them. What I am saying is that I don't see this impacting the landscape much with regard to who Google's friends and foes are or even who is ambivalent. It might raise they stakes with some but only where they were already high.
Stupid summary ... (Score:2)
They'll provide WebM plugins for the browsers of the H.264-only league, so in practice, all mayor browsers will have WebM support –one way or the other. Machiavellian move?
No ... it's the reason we have plug-ins.
As always, it comes down to content providers (Score:5, Interesting)
The more things change, they more they stay the same. Once upon a time, we used to visit webpages and were told that we needed to download Real Player to view the content on the page. Then we needed QuickTime. Then we needed Flash. Now we are going to need WebM.
In the end, it doesn't matter what the browser vendors want to include with the browser. It will come down to the content providers and whether or not their content is compelling. If they are offering what consumers want, consumers will download whatever plugin they need. Downloading plugins is an established behavior.
The only group who will be affected by this at all are the developers. They have to make the choice as to what video encoding scheme they want to use for their applications. So developers out there, how many of you care? On one hand you know that if you go with H.264, all IE and Safari users (read 90%+ of computer users) will be able to view your content without downloading a plugin. You will miss out Chrome users (assuming nobody comes out with an H.264 plugin for Chrome). On the other hand, you can choose WebM and presumably avoid the spectre of maybe, possibly, one day (but not very likely) having to pay royalities on H.264. You end up with some portion of the 90% of the market who are willing to download a plugin. Which do you choose? Or more realistically, which one does your employer hoist on you?
It's not a browser plugin! (Score:3)
It's not a browser plugin in the same way as Flash, or that recent Microsoft thingy to play H.264 in Firefox. It's just codecs. Quote: [techcrunch.com]
The HTML tag specification actually provides a capability known as canPlayType. Web developers use this capability to see which codecs are supported by the particular browser and it is completely transparent to them whether the codec was shipped natively in the browser or later installed by an end user. Safari and IE9 provide a way for users to install support for additional codecs via this capability. So basically web page developers still write their site based on the standards and all this “plug-in” does is add a capability to the browser in the context of what is permitted by the standard.
So basically it's just a QuickTime filter for Safari, and whatever IE uses (DirectShow?) for IE.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess as long as you don't mind eventually paying for the licenses or battling the patent trolls. Even though currently H.264 is available for 'free' (as in you don't have to pay for it), the current owners are not obligated to keep it that way. H.264 is not really free in the rms sense of the word.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
MPEG-LA isn't meant primarily to generate a profit, it's a collaboration of many patent holders who have pooled their patents to create a legal, high quality, open, widely supported video codec that they can all use, preventing a slew of inferior, proprietary incompatible video formats from each company. MPEG-LA, and their members, primarily want a codec that can be more or less used universally. It's not in their best interest to become "patent trolls" and sue people not making money off of their patents.
O
Re:Then has anyone decided to fork the H.264 build (Score:5, Insightful)
IIRC it also costs oodles for licensing for those making browsers, which in turn raises the costs of making a browser, which in turns hurts competition.
Re: (Score:3)
> MPEG-LA isn't meant primarily to generate a profit...
Horseshit. It's purpose is to maximize the profits of the members.
Re:Then has anyone decided to fork the H.264 build (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Then has anyone decided to fork the H.264 build (Score:5, Insightful)
Try buying a video camera that doesn't use either x264 or mpeg2 video codecs. Every major video camera maker, and just about every minor one uses these codecs.
That's the whole point of creating a standard high quality codec. Would you rather Sony, Olympus, etc., all have their own incompatible formats? What's worse, is these formats would be limited in quality by lack of licensing of patents.
By pooling their patents, a codec which is legal, high quality, and universally supported is possible.
So when you buy them, you have to pay the royalty fees. That would be what I would consider maximizing profits.
How is the free choices of other, non-MPEG-LA members an example of MPEG-LA maximizing their profits?
Sony pays more to license H.264 than they receive in royalties from their licensing fees, by definition. So how is this Sony maximizing their profits? Wouldn't it be better to use their own, proprietary codec?
It would be more profitable, but it would not be better. They tried that with ATRAC and UMD and it didn't work. What *does* work is having an open format which is high quality and universally supported.
As I mentioned, it strangled out competition so that MPEG-LA, and ONLY MPEG-LA is profiting from this. It kills any form of competition which is never a good thing. It has been shown numerous times in numerous business fields. And what good does a free to use codec do? It allows people to use their videos and try to make money from their hard work without having to pay even more money on top of their investment of the tools they already paid for or worry about it being denied. If I made a for-profit movie that shows the downfalls of relying upon the MPEG-LA's licensed technologies and promote free to use ones, I'm likely to have the MPEG-LA want to figure out a legal way to refuse it which would cause me to lose time and money, a risk I shouldn't have to worry about. And there is always other problems. Without competition, a company won't bother to improve their products to the extent that it can be because that costs money.
There are other codecs that would work just as great and are flexible and free to use (like Googles own WebM as an example) but the owners of the other codecs don't have the muscle of MPEG-LA, so they get strangled out so the MPEG-LA, and only MPEG-LA, is profiting from digital video codec sales.
Google can join MPEG-LA. And to assert that WebM would work "just as great" is absolute bullshit at this point in time. A standard that is widely supported is far superior to even a better format that is poorly supported. Doubly so when it comes to battery life of handheld devices. But WebM isn't even technologically better in any way. H.264 is superior. The *only* thing WebM has on H.264 is its licensing arrangement (and even that's dubious given the likelihood of it infringing upon MPEG-LA's patents).
To start with, there is no real reason that Google should have to agree to MPEG-LA's rules if they don't want to. Nor is h.264 superior, as tests have shown that they are neck to neck [streamingmedia.com] (with WebM's code not being optimized). The only times h.264 was done better was went it was assisted by the GPU which isn't in most mobile devices. Now as WebM becomes more mature and optimized, it might very well be a more superior.
It also gives the MPEG-LA power over how people use the videos they make. According to the licensing of x264, you will also need an additional license to use your digital video commercially, and since any video made with a digital video recording (becoming quite the norm with most people) that means that MPEG-LA yet again has their fingers in the pie for more money.
Big deal. If you are using your video commerc
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
H.264 official name is MPEG-4 AVC. DivX/XviD/H.263 official name is MPEG-4 ASP
This made me cringe slightly. H.264 is the official name for the CODEC from the ITU-T Video Coding Experts Group (VCEG). MPEG-4 AVC is the official name from the ISO/IEC Motion Picture Experts Group (MPEG).
H.263 is an earlier standard from VCEG which was (and still is) intended mainly for video conferencing. It is completely unrelated to any MPEG standards. The Sorensen Spark CODEC, used by QuickTime and Flash when they are not using H.264, is based on H.263.
DivX and XviD are both names of implementat
Re:Then has anyone decided to fork the H.264 build (Score:5, Insightful)
And there is the crux of the issue: Assuming a strong distinction between consumer and producer, there's no problem. But anyone astride the cusp between the two is vulnerable to fees that could stop them from distributing a popular video made with H.264. People have already testified here that once the license regime kicks in (for distribution above a certain number) they suddenly gain the interest of the licensing body and have no choice but to pay or to stop distributing the video.
The idea that video content is made solely for profit is the worm in the middle of this particular apple. And it's likely why Google, with their huge investment in Youtube, want to give their users an alternative.
well said (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Absolute nonsense. If you create and give away content online, you don't have to pay a license. If you create and sell content online, you do. The fees are small enough that they are not a realistic barrier.
Also, you are 100% false in claiming that they choice is to "pay or stop distributing the video". They can re-encode in WebM, Theora, or some other codec, if such a choice were actually the case.
Care to dig up some references other than "people have already testified here"? Relying on your memory of what
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you have any ads on your page, even if you are using using just ad words and you show that video it might be argued you are using it commercially.
No. The license only demands fees if you actually charge for individual works (such as how iTunes sells TV shows). Ads are perfectly fine.
You just being an apologist because you bought a bunch of h.264 toys.
No. I support it because it's superior. And it's not being an apologist if the thing you are supporting is superior in the manner in which you are supporting it.
You, on the other hand, are an apologist for the inferior WebM codec, simply because it's ideologically compatible with you. There is absolutely no way whatsoever in which WebM is superior to H.264 except in terms
Re:Then has anyone decided to fork the H.264 build (Score:5, Interesting)
>MPEG-LA has already claimed that WebM most likely infringes upon their patents. If you adopt it, you risk a danger that is actually likely and in MPEG-LA's interest,
In other words if they lose in the marketplace against WebM they will try to win the courtroom with their stable of bullshit patents like "drawing to screen web-based device" and "putting data in framebuffer of mobile device"
Stop defending software patents as being legitimate concepts in a debate over formats. They're roadblocks society has long overgrown. Suggesting that we should align ourselves with the larger mafiosio because he has more guns is stupid, shortsighted, and shows you to be a MPEGLA shill even if that isn't your intention.
Re: (Score:2)
How is it that it costs you nothing? Are you pirating it?
If you are using H.264 legally, you ARE paying for its licensing, even if indirectly, as part of the costs of the products you pay for that include it.
People like me that want to run computers more safely with 100% locally compiled source code are being locked out by the MPEG-LA. If they would allow me to use MPEG-LA legally based on freely downloaded source I compile, I would use it. Being as they do not allow that, I won't use it.
There is an alte
Re:Then has anyone decided to fork the H.264 build (Score:5, Informative)
if what you're saying is true, why didn't they just make it open, maybe with a foundation in charge of certifying different implementations ?
what do you mean by "pissing in their pool" ? do you mean competing ? is that a bed thing now ? or illegal ?
my take is the patent holder are out to make money. they can't really make it off of the consumer, client side, so they're reluctantly making it free as in beer, in order to safeguard their business-side revenue. and they may change their mind at any later date about the special terms under which x.264 is for now allowed to be used to for free in certain specific cases.
you're wrong to think that h.264 comes for free. your devices' manufacturers have had to pay royalties, which are reflected in the price you paid for the devices.
Re: (Score:3)
Sure it is. It is meant to generate profit by putting up a barrier to entry into that market. This limits competition which raises prices and of course profit.
Re: (Score:3)
Why is it that no one seems to be concerned over the idea that, sometime in the future, Google might change their minds and start enforcing THEIR patents?
They've irrevocably given up their rights to enforce their patents against WebM implementations, that's why. Now, if they had patents that h.264 infringed, they could still sue users of h.264... but WebM is safe in that regard.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is incorrect. A codec can be installed that can encode/decode for a system. It's just that software makers don't want to give away their encoding to other companies, or often they are not general purpose codecs. Ahead's Nero is different in this, as I believe they have codecs they install that allow you to use the formats they pay form.
Re:Then has anyone decided to fork the H.264 build (Score:5, Informative)
mp3 is not free..
http://mp3licensing.com/royalty/emd.html [mp3licensing.com]
h.264 is not free:
http://www.streaminglearningcenter.com/articles/h264-royalties-what-you-need-to-know.html [streamingl...center.com]
mpeg2 is not free:
http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/M2/Pages/Agreement.aspx [mpegla.com]
(how do I make a proper link here - without the whole url showing up?)
Re:Then has anyone decided to fork the H.264 build (Score:4, Interesting)
I think you might be surprised what supports OGG. It never says it on the box or, when it comes to car stereos, on the faceplate, but sometimes it is there. My car stereo that supports USB plays ogg, and it surprised me when it worked because there is no information anywhere that it would. It's free so it simply gets put in, and maybe in some cases the bozos in management don't even know it.
Re: (Score:2)
Have the MPEG raked us over the coals with MPEG1, MPEG2, JPEG, MP3, or AAC? Then why do you think they'll do it with MPEG4/h264?
Read the licenses in products that do MP3 encoding (iTunes for instance). Even with Apple paying a licensing fee, what you get isn't licensed for commercial use. MPEG2 video playback is something one normally didn't get for free either. Although there might be a license for s dedicated DVD player app, people had to pay for QuickTime Pro to get MPEG2 support.
If you read the licenses for any product you have that does encoding or decoding you'll see there are major issues. There are problems for both cont
Re: (Score:2)
There are clear strategic reasons why Google would care about WebM vs. H.264 marketshare; but(unlike a DRM problem,
Re: (Score:3)
Actually yes, auto-update can be easily disabled and no, they do not have any control over what you do with your browser once it's on your PC. You PC isn't an iPhone and Chrome isn't Steam, so it can't automatically uninstall nor does Chrome tries to validate itself with Google in order to work, at least not without liborwell present. Also, lo and behold: http://www.oldapps.com/google_chrome.php [oldapps.com] Chrome since version 1.0.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, I think it's generally true that any browser should not have to pay licensing fees - the decoder shouldn't be part of the browser. Major OSes already come with their own video API which either uses a software or hardware decoder.
I thought the whole point of the video tag was to allow in-browser video to reach parity with standalone player, not to force
Re: (Score:2)
well, its not like you're going to keep it for longer than a year or two anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
The library is Open Source under a non-restrictive license - you can include in with proprietary software. If you don't like Google's plugin, you can get one made by another person/company/foundation/etc.
Re: (Score:2)
You are looking at it wrong. See my comment here: http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1952346&cid=34892754 [slashdot.org]
And why not use the plugin? You already use plugins for Flash and probably don't find that to be terrible. And if you are an MSIE user, you probably install ActiveX plugins too. This will not be a difficult chore for most users.
Re: (Score:2)
Will Google only use webm for YouTube, forcing me to use its plugin so I can watch silly videos?
Could be. Are you forced to watch silly videos?
If I use Google's plug-in, will they track all my internet activity?
No, but if you use YouTube or other Google services, with or without a plugin, they will.
While Google will provide support to other desktop browsers, will they use this as a wedge against iPhone/mobile safari?
How would they do that? iPhones can view YouTube videos now, and Apple isn't going to let that feature disappear. WebM is an open codec. If users need WebM support to view YouTube videos, Apple will provide WebM support.
Re:h.264 Broadcasting consideration? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
MPEG is not to be trusted? Are you kidding? They've standardised the dominant formats for digital music (mp3), video discs (mpeg-2), video broadcasts (mpeg-2-ts), and now Internet video (mpeg-4-avc). They have wide ranging industry support from hardware producers, content creators, and content owners. You would be hard pressed to find a better example of trustworthy creators of open standards. They are a subset of ISO/IEC for crying out lo