The Ambiguity of "Open" and VP8 Vs. H.264 493
An anonymous reader writes "With all the talk about WebM and H.264, how the move might be a step backwards for openness, and Google's intention to add 'plugins' for IE9 and Safari to support WebM, this article attempts to clear misconceptions about the VP8 and H.264 codecs and how browsers render video. Firefox, Opera and Google rely on their own media frameworks to decode video, whereas IE9 and Safari will hand over video processing to the operating system (Windows Media Player or QuickTime), the need for the web to establish a baseline codec for encoding videos, and how the Flash player is proprietary, but implementation and usage remain royalty free."
Wow this is a bit onesided. (Score:2)
H.264s development was open? I mean really that is just a bit of a reach.
So I disagree with everything in this but one thing.
The correct way to implement video is to used the OS provided framework. Support EVERYTHING the OS can support as far as formats goes. It really is the the correct and most flexible way to do things. While I support the idea of WebM it will cause no end to problems if Apple, RIM, Nokia, and Palm/HP do not support it.
Re:Wow this is a bit onesided. (Score:4, Insightful)
H.264s development was open? I mean really that is just a bit of a reach.
Far more so than VP8's development was until last May. At least with H.264 it was being developed between different companies and industry groups whereas VP8 was a closed-source, proprietary codec developed by a two-bit company that almost no consumer before Google's buy out had every heard of.
Re:Wow this is a bit onesided. (Score:4, Insightful)
Really? Can you contribute code to H.264? Can you use the spec in your own software and publish it with out a large amount of jumping through hoops?
Really H.264 may have been public but I would not call it open. WebM is now what I would consider to be open as is Theora and Dirac http://diracvideo.org/ [diracvideo.org] .
So no I do not feel that H.254 meets the definition of open as far as development goes.
So yes it really is a bit of a reach IMHO.
Re:Wow this is a bit onesided. (Score:4, Informative)
Really?
Yes, really. Before Google opened the code in May of last year, On2 was developing VP8 as a closed-source proprietary codec since 2008. H.264 on the other hand was developed by the ISO standards board and a whole host of companies in it's development. Like all ISO standards one could get access to the full spec. Such a thing was impossible for the first 2.5 years of VP8's life.
Really H.264 may have been public but I would not call it open.
Can you use the spec in your own software and publish it with out a large amount of jumping through hoops?
Sure, x264 developers have been doing so for the better part of 6 years.
It's no less open than most of the other standards which are called "open".
So no I do not feel that H.254 meets the definition of open as far as development goes.
And neither was VP8 until 7 months ago when it was a completely closed-source codec.
Re:Wow this is a bit onesided. (Score:5, Insightful)
"And neither was VP8 until 7 months ago when it was a completely closed-source codec."
Well then this post would have been right 7 months ago. But that was seven months ago and this is now.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And that's why I said:
Far more so than VP8's development was until last May
Secondly, H.264 is no more "closed" than the supposed "open" standards such as ISO C++ with statements like:
Can you contribute code to H.264?
To turn it around, can YOU contribute to the C++ ISO standard? Highly unlikely just like it's highly unlikely that most people could contribute to the H.264 ISO standard. So by this logic C++ is also a "closed" standard, no?
Re:Wow this is a bit onesided. (Score:5, Insightful)
The C++ standard I can make a compiler for without paying anyone. It is not a burden to entry like h.264 is.
The ISO stopped meaning anything the minute they approved the MS "open" formats.
Re: (Score:3)
The fact that you don't like OOXML [..] doesn't make it not open.
Nor does the fact that it was written in English, nor the fact that it is sometimes printed on white paper. Why bother mentioning these things?
What makes it not open is that
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Secondly, H.264 is no more "closed" than the supposed "open" standards such as ISO C++ with statements like:
I fail to understand the comparison, unless my C++ program is going to be royalty encumbered because I've used it?
I can't believe people are being this thick after all the dicussion on the matter.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
H.264 - I think you could use the word "transparent" in relation to its development process, or "consensus" in regards to the attitudes from different companies regarding it (at least, until VP8 came to town), but "open"? I don't think it stands up to any of the FOSS definitions of "open".
VP8 - maybe it wasn't open 7 months ago, but it is now.
Re:Wow this is a bit onesided. (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think it stands up to any of the FOSS definitions of "open".
And the same could be said about the C++ and ODF standards yet those are called "open" standards by the same people talking about how H.264 is "closed".
VP8 - maybe it wasn't open 7 months ago, but it is now.
Is it really? Can any individual really have any meaningful say in the direction of how the VP8 codec is developed unless you work at Google? Sure they've given the source out but you'll have no more say in how the spec develops than you would for the H.264 standard.
Re: (Score:3)
And the same could be said about the C++ and ODF standards yet those are called "open" standards by the same people talking about how H.264 is "closed".
That's because those standards aren't patent-encumbered. I mean, duh!
Is it really? Can any individual really have any meaningful say in the direction of how the VP8 codec is developed unless you work at Google?
Probably. Why not? You might as well complain that Apache is under the control of the Apache Foundation or GCC is under the control of the Free Software Foundation. Or X11 under the control of Xfree86--oh wait.... Try contributing to Linux without the help and stewardship of the current maintainers and see how far you get.
At the moment, everyone (including, e.g. Debian) uses Google's implementation, but if Google stumbles, there's abso
Re:Wow this is a bit onesided. (Score:5, Insightful)
We are talking about now, though. I agree that H.264 is an open standard and VP8 was a closed one, but WebM is an open standard now and this is what should really matter at this point.
The critical difference between the two formats now is that one is royalty free and one is temporarily royalty free - in other words, we have no idea how H.264 could evolve. Maybe it'll stay royalty free forever, which would make it an interesting alternative. Maybe it will not, though, and that could be a potential disaster for video on the web - or just a thorn in the side of Google and other big video sites.
The big debate therefore is: do we stay with a widely adopted, high performance format that may behave like a Damocles sword, or do we switch now for what is currently an inferior but safer alternative?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The critical difference between the two formats now is that one is royalty free and one is temporarily royalty free - in other words, we have no idea how H.264 could evolve. Maybe it'll stay royalty free forever, which would make it an interesting alternative. Maybe it will not, though, and that could be a potential disaster for video on the web - or just a thorn in the side of Google and other big video sites.
The problem, of course, is we don't know whether VP8 will stay royalty free either with the patent threats hanging over it. And with Google refusing to indemnify users of the spec, and refusing to take legal action to get a legal opinion (from a court - what are those called?) that it violates no patents, one can't be sure whether MPEG-LA's rumbling has any basis in fact.
Re:Wow this is a bit onesided. (Score:4, Insightful)
- AVC/H.264 FAQ [mpegla.com]
Re:Wow this is a bit onesided. (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem, of course, is we don't know whether VP8 will stay royalty free either with the patent threats hanging over it.
Which specific patent threats? I'm not talking bullshit random "there might be a patent threat somewhere hiding under the wardrobe" patent threats. I'm talking threats with a patent number and a "you are infringing, pay up or else" letter attached to them.
Let me make a patent "threat". There might be a secret H.264 patent that which I might have heard of which which will maybe suddenly come to life next year. If you don't pay me a million Euros for every device you have I might not use my (possibly existing or possibly not existing) influence to divert this threat that may (or may not) appear later.
Anybody can do that. If you fail to specifically notify someone who has put a public implementation out for free, what they have done wrong you aren't fulfilling your duties as a patent holder wanting to collect royalties.
And with Google refusing to indemnify users of the spec, and refusing to take legal action to get a legal opinion (from a court - what are those called?) that it violates no patents, one can't be sure whether MPEG-LA's rumbling has any basis in fact.
Strangely enough the MPEG-LA also provides no indemnification and has failed to "legal action to get a legal opinion". What Google provides, for free, is a license for all patents known to be used in the WebM standard, exactly the same as the MPEG-LA charges for.
What is interesting is; what is the source for your ideas? Where did you even get the idea that Google is "refusing to take legal action"? It's impossible to prove a negative and it's impossible to take action against widespread innuenduo. No judge will grant an open statement that "no patents are infringed". At best they could act to say "patent number XYZ was not infringed. You should look over that source agan and see if it's not trying to mislead you over a bunch of other things.
Re:Wow this is a bit onesided. (Score:5, Insightful)
He was being rhetorical when he asked "really?".
I think h.264 has done a great job for the web. It's provided us with high quality video on demand. It's helped ensure our hardware also has high quality video.
VP8 on the other hand, regardless of its' roots is meant to help break a lock on the industry, a lock that h.264 has gained. It's a lock that must be broken. Having choice is really all that matters even if it sets things back once in a while. Often times industries take 2 steps forward and 1 step back.
Technically, this is not a huge change. It isn't an instant change. If the industry can implement this in the web and other software products, as well as hardware, then so be it. If both need to be supported then so be it. It's not unheard of and not altogether uncommon.
The goal is to give choice and to ensure that the consumer isn't locked into one product, that, in being so, denies them choice and increases their costs.
So, so be it. Nothing we do here in debate will change the reality of the situation. Google's made a choice that it feels is best to ensure that things are open and inexpensive.
Time to move forward.
Re:Wow this is a bit onesided. (Score:5, Informative)
Can you contribute code to H.264?
The question does not make sense. It's like asking 'can you contribute code to HTML?' H.264 is a standard, not an implementation. The license of various implementations is independent of the way in which the standard was developed.
H.264 was developed jointly the ITU-T Video Coding Experts Group (VCEG) and the ISO/IEC Moving Picture Experts Group (MPEG). These groups solicited contributions from anyone. If you wanted to contribute something to the spec, you could. There was a lot of political stuff as well, with a few things being added to the spec just so that companies could get one of their patents in.
In contrast, VP8 was developed in private by On2 and dumped on the public by Google. The x.264 developers raised some issues with the spec, but were told that the format was frozen and would not be modified. Theora and Dirac are both frozen now, but they had an open development process and modified the bitstream format several times based on feedback from external groups.
So, when you are talking about the process for developing the spec, Theora, Dirac, and H.264 were all open. When you are talking about using the spec, Theora, Dirac, and VP8 are all open.
Re:Wow this is a bit onesided. (Score:5, Insightful)
Thank you. Someone finally understands what I'm saying. The problem is that so many other standards that work in the exact same way that H.264 did are referred to as "open" yet H.264 is demonized as being "closed" despite there being little to no difference in the way both standards were developed.
Re:Wow this is a bit onesided. (Score:4, Insightful)
I would say the difference between them is patent encumbrance. Sure you can use h.264 if you're a smelly basement dwelling open source fanatic, but commercial usage is limited by patent licensing and royalties.
Re:Wow this is a bit onesided. (Score:4, Insightful)
Yet, oddly, it is the smelly basement dwelling open source fanatics who are complaining most about H.264. The others out there who really have a product to sell realize the licensing fees are really minimal.
Re:Wow this is a bit onesided. (Score:4, Insightful)
Patents also encumber USB and HDMI, I haven't seen Google on the barricades against those technologies used in Android phones and Google TVs respectively.
Re: (Score:3)
Patents also encumber USB and HDMI
No software patents, apparently. Is USB support in the Linux kernel patent encumbered? Is Intel or any other USB Implementers Forum member threatening to sue?
Hardware patents, while perhaps counterproductive, are a much less serious threat to open standards than software patents are. For one thing, they tend to be orders of magnitude less vague. For another, hardware cannot economically be distributed for free. Third, the entire structure of the open Internet does not dep
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
It is just another example of doublespeak. You are redefining words but focusing on an irrelevant part of the definition.
You might as well argue that Monarchy is more open than Democracy, because how the "election" is made is more open in how public and predicable it is, everyone can access the result in advance, where the the democratic process is done in secret in small boxes and is unpredictable.
While you could technically be right, you are still distorting the truth, an
Re: (Score:3)
It is just another example of doublespeak. You are redefining words but focusing on an irrelevant part of the definition.
I'm not redefining anything. You've just quote mined my post to attack it. Up until Google open source VP8 it was a proprietary, closed sourced standard. H.264 was an "open" ISO standard in the same vein as how C++ is an "open" ISO standard.
While you could technically be right, you are still distorting the truth, and that, to me, is bad part of lying.
What part of the truth am I distorting? H.264 was developed during the ISO process by the input of lots of companies and industry people and had an openly published spec. VP8 had no public spec, was completely closed source and had all development driven by one comp
Re:Wow this is a bit onesided. (Score:5, Insightful)
But that is in the past, by focusing on it now, you are making it look like (in fact making the argument) that H.264 is more open, through focus on and old irrelevant fact, but ignoring another definition of the word open where WebM is much more open than H.264 will ever be.
Let's take this:
* According to one aspect H.264 was once more open, but this aspect applies to the past.
* According to another aspect WebM is much more open, and this applies today.
I am not saying you are wrong, you are in fact right, but you are distorting the debate through pedantic and irrelevant details.
Now you didn't start this doublespeak, but I can only think the person who did, was either doing so deliberately or is in serious denial.
Re: (Score:3)
But that is in the past, by focusing on it now, you are making it look like (in fact making the argument) that H.264 is more open,
In many ways it still is. H.264 is an ISO standard in which more than one company has say in how the spec is managed. VP8 is still highly controlled by Google.
through focus on and old irrelevant fact, but ignoring another definition of the word open where WebM is much more open than H.264 will ever be.
It's not all that irrelevant since if one is to call H.264 "closed" by the very same standard one has to call C++ "closed" as well.
* According to one aspect H.264 was once more open, but this aspect applies to the past.
No, H.264 is still an open ISO standard. This has not changed.
* According to another aspect WebM is much more open, and this applies today.
It's more "open" with respects to patents, but the development is still highly centralized within Google so in many cases it is still far more "closed".
I am not saying you are wrong, you are in fact right, but you are distorting the debate through pedantic and irrelevant details.
I'm n
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, distribute it by source or distribute it outside the US.
H.264 is an open standard, but patent-encumbered (different things). If you sidestep the patent issue the concerns disappear, and you're free to use it, comfortable in the fact that the definition is well-defined, stable, and supported by players across the industry. This is what open standards imply, not that it's royalty free.
Really we need something that is both open (in the standards sense) and royalty free. Sadly, at present we are present
Re: (Score:3)
> Yes, distribute it by source or distribute it outside the US.
It's not quite that simple. You have to be not just outside the US, but outside most of Europe, a good bit of East Asia, outside North America period, and outside Australia. See http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/bz/archives/020400.html [mozillazine.org]
It could probably be done, but it would take some work.
Re:Wow this is a bit onesided. (Score:5, Informative)
You are confusing the standards with their implementations.
All of these standards are now frozen, so no one can contribute to them. H.264 was open during its design, and VP8 was closed (and suggestions for improvement were ignored when the spec and reference implementation was made available). Since they are both frozen, I'd say H.264 spec was and is more open *as a standard*.
Now, as far as implementations go, it's a different story (though still not as cut and dried as people claim). VP8/WebM is now open source, great And x264 is a GPL implementation of H.264, so it is just as "open". The difference all comes down to licensing - a number of patents are required to implement the H.264 standard, so anyone who implements it and wants to use it in a country that recognizes those patents has to pay licensing fees or risk being sued.
That last bit definitely makes VP8 more attractive to people who don't want to pay license fees. So, call it "more expensive to use", "patent encumbered", or some other more descriptive term. But just throwing around the vague concept of "open" without the real context doesn't help the discussion...
Re: (Score:3)
Far more so than VP8's development was until last May. At least with H.264 it was being developed between different companies and industry groups whereas VP8 was a closed-source, proprietary codec developed by a two-bit company that almost no consumer before Google's buy out had every heard of.
I beg to differ.. On2 Technologies was at the very least an 8bit company and probably even a 16 and 32 bit company at times.. thank you very much..
Re:Wow this is a bit onesided. (Score:4, Informative)
Unfortunately, that means you don't get H.264 on Linux as its a proprietary codec that requires some form of (paid) licencing.
I mean, Firefox doesn't support H.264, but Microsoft will happily provide you with the capability of playing H.264 in firefox using a driver that leverages the OS capability... as long as you're running it on Windows.
I think you're partly right though, all the codecs should be implemented as drivers (or similar) and then you are technically using the OS-provided capability, once the correct codec is installed. But its not like the OS is providing the drivers directly, you'll haver to go get them from somewhere. As WebM is free, codecs for it will be freely available for all OSs.
I guess the problem comes for those OSs that are locked down, but then you'er always on to a loser - if Apple only supports H.264 on iPhone and Microsoft only supports (say) H.265 on WP7, and neither allows you to upgrade the video support, then you will never get a video to play universally.
At least there's no excuse for not supporting WebM by all manufacturers, and any who try to give one will quickly be found out by consumers.
As an analogy - look at the non-free 'internets', Microsoft tried to lock you into MSN, and AOL tried similarly. Look where they are now.
Re: (Score:3)
Microsoft only supports (say) H.265 on WP7, and neither allows you to upgrade the video support, then you will never get a video to play universally.
Wrong. IE9 natively supports only H.264 but will support playing back videos using other codecs by using the OS multimedia framework and installed codecs. This will allow it to play VP8, Theora, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
But isn't that whole "native support" issue what caused this whole thing to explode? Google dropped "native" (in the browser) support for H.264.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, because Chrome doesn't go to the OS's multimedia framework to play codecs it doesn't support natively. IE9, on the other hand, will.
Re: (Score:2)
framework support only works for that OS.
that is the wrong way to do it, for that exact reason.
can you do the same things in firefox/chrome on every OS? yes, you can. that's the point.
Re: (Score:2)
framework support only works for that OS.
Sure, in the world in which cross-platform multimedia frameworks don't exist. Fortunately we don't live in such a world.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's great, but it means nothing for all the people who own phones, video cards, standalone players, etc that only have H.264 support. Are consumers supposed to just ditch all this previous, and in some cases expensive, hardware just to get support because Google wants to foist another codec into the jungle of codecs that the world already faces?
FIxed that for you. (Score:3)
What I care about (Score:5, Insightful)
By using h.264, you pretty much guarantee that *someone* *somewhere* is paying for it. Could you imagine if say, the "David After Dentist" kid had to pay tons and tons of royalties to the MPAA for a video they created simply because they used the h.264 container format? To even conceive such a thing is such bullshit that this should absolutely be a non-issue.
Though this will never happen, the US government should claim eminent domain on all patents involving the h.264 technology, and then dare the large companies to make a move. After all, we're the ones with the guns.
Re: (Score:2)
I care if it has hardware-based acceleration, because I don't do everything on a beefy desktop. H.264 is supported in hardware on billions of devices. WebM is supported on absolutely no devices.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If VP8 became the dominant codec used on the internet, the hardware acceleration will follow very quickly.
So basically everyone will be forced to upgrade their phones and computers because Google wants to force ANOTHER codec on the web?
Re: (Score:2)
Let me put it in plain terms here: We've all been through this before--many times. It's nothing new, and won't stop with h.264 or any other codec. When a new technology comes out, you'll eventually need to upgrade.
Re: (Score:2)
And H264 needs hardware acceleration because the math involved taxes even a high end CPU...
Re: (Score:2)
The only thing that concerns me about the web video format is that it needs to be unencumbered by royalties or other licensing. If I want to make a video, encode it, sell it, make ads off of a website, get 100 or 100,000 visitors, I should damn well be able to do that without having to pay a dime to anyone for the ability to make my own god damn videos--unless I optionally choose.
By killing h.264 support all together, though, you are killing the "choose" keyword. Google announced they are going to release WebM plugins for Safari and IE, that is a good way to go. But killing h.264 in their product as a mean of strong-arm the entire industry to go their way... well, its something Microsoft would had done in the late 90's. Give choice, dont force. No matter how noble the intentions, forcing a choice is never a noble act.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You don't have the right to use a technology developed by someone else (e.g. H.264) without paying. It's nice if you have such an option and I understand why you would prefer it, but there is no inherent right to it.
Arguments like yours are what sometimes weaken the FOSS movement. People who do not understand what FOSS is all about think it is full of whiny people who want to get everything for free. Guess what? You (me, everybody) don't deserve to get a video codec for free. There are some things that we d
Re:What I care about (Score:5, Insightful)
> You don't have the right to use a technology developed by someone else (e.g. H.264) without paying.
Well then, put a fork in it because it's done. Google has the right idea.
h264 should be officially killed as a web standard because it is payware.
Find something else to standardize on or get the relevant patents nullified.
The whole lot of them should be emminent domained over this sort of rambus nonsense.
Re:What I care about (Score:5, Interesting)
I think you missed the part where he said "unless I optionally choose." When someone buys a camera, and buys a software system that supports it, they expect that they own the chain and what they create with it. Since we're talking about the standardization of the tag in HTML 5 to H.264, we are talking about essentially forcing people into a royalty-based production chain. Already, there is the problem of H.264 being standard on many video cameras, and requiring undisclosed (at the time of purchase) royalty payments for wedding videographers, garage music video makers, and other semi-pro video producers.
It's an unexpected tax. If we're creating a web standard for an open and widely available internet, it should also be as unexpected-tax free as possible.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You don't have the right to use a technology developed by someone else (e.g. H.264) without paying. It's nice if you have such an option and I understand why you would prefer it, but there is no inherent right to it.
Arguments like yours are what sometimes weaken the FOSS movement. People who do not understand what FOSS is all about think it is full of whiny people who want to get everything for free. Guess what? You (me, everybody) don't deserve to get a video codec for free. There are some things that we deserve to get for free, but video codecs are not one of them.
Sir —
To preface, I suggest you may wish to read Lawrence Lessig's Free Culture: The Nature and Future of Creativity [wikipedia.org], which I believe supports the following statements.
With respect, your statements that one does not have an inherent right to use a technology as the starting point for an analysis is not correct, from a legal and policy perspective, in a free and democratic society.
In a free culture everyone has an inherent right to do anything, subject to the restrictions imposed and enforced by way of
Re: (Score:3)
Sir,
Thank you very much for your enlightening response. I do not think your point was pedantic, and I very much enjoyed reading what you bothered to write.
I agree that in a way, I have mixed up the concepts. Yes, we have a right to do whatever we want, with those liberties restricted by laws enacted by our ruling body (be it a dictatorship, an elected congress or whatnot).
Perhaps my opinion should have been better phrased this way: By joining a society (e.g. USA), we have agreed to relinquish several rights
Re:What I care about (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't have the right to use a technology developed by someone else (e.g. H.264) without paying. It's nice if you have such an option and I understand why you would prefer it, but there is no inherent right to it.
No, actually, it is the other way around: there is no inherent right to demand payment for your ideas. Patents are nothing more than a legal construct designed to encourage innovation, and patents expire for that very reason: they are artificial and deprive people of the natural right to implement what they know (i.e. the patented the material, which they may read). Furthermore, mathematics cannot be patented, and the legal basis for software patents (which amount to patents on mathematics, like it or not) is extremely shaky, and yes, you do have a right to use someone's mathematical discoveries without paying them (unless they call it an algorithm and get a patent on it, in which case you cannot exercise your right for 20 years).
Seriously, this bizarre notion that you have a natural right to forbid other people from using your ideas needs to be dropped. Patents are not a natural right; if they were, they could not expire, any more than your rights to live or speak freely can expire.
Re:What I care about (Score:5, Interesting)
MPEG-LA has a real quandary here. Imagine, for a moment, that you're running the MPEG-LA business, and think about the devices that code and (more importantly) decode video. Your job is to create as many revenue streams as possible. In order to do this, you want your encoder used by all content producers, but more importantly, the content producers need an audience, so you want your *decoder* used by all consumers.
Furthermore, you're smart enough to realize that you want royalties on every *hardware* device (think cellphones, DVD players, etc.) that is shipped with h.264, and perhaps every copy of OS X and Windows. You also realize that there is zero money to be made from including h.264 n Firefox/etc, because Firefox generates no revenue. In fact, you *want* h.264 used in Firefox, Chrome, etc., just because it increases the audience size. So you sit down to rewrite the royalty/licensing structures to specifically allow free browsers to implement h.264 for free, but then you stop. Why? Because you've just realized that these little hardware devices (or even DVD players, these days) can incorporate Firefox/Chrome/etc. into their software stack and thereby skirt any royalty structure you've just set up for your hardware devices.
Maybe it's because I'm not a lawyer, but I can't conceive of any legal language that would allow MPEG-LA to distinguish between browser+h.264 on computer vs. browser+h.264 on cellphones/DVD players/whatever devices comes along in the future.
Re: (Score:2)
the US government should claim eminent domain on all patents involving the h.264 technology
But Mr. Stalin, I thought you were dead. Apparently not.
Re: (Score:3)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain
In this case, if the US government were to seize the h.264 property and providing just compensation (I would imagine would be somewhat less the cost of what we're spending on these wars) to the creators, then put it into the public use--then we very well can do it.
Re:What I care about (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's think about what you're saying here. Just imagine this world.
A) Pay per visitor for Ethernet
B) Pay per visitor for IP
C) Pay per visitor for TCP
D) Pay per visitor for HTTP
E) In addition to that, all vendors across all supply chains pay for rights to use these technologies. Cisco and Juniper pay royalty rights for the aforementioned technologies, end users pay for it in the devices. People and companies paying to run a business off of each of these technologies.
Re: (Score:3)
Paying taxes is a completely different beast from being "forced" to pay for the h.264 codec licensing fees.
And when I say "forced", I'm implying that if every device on the market can *only* encode in h.264, and every player on the market can *only* play h.264, and modify
Re: (Score:3)
But the question comes down to what constitutes as "free view" over the web? If you look at major hits such as RayWilliamJohnson, people like that "profit" off of making videos on the internet. He's got t-shirt deals that now have his stuff being sold in Hot Topic stores across the country. He's a pretty
Shocking: Apple and MS are doing the right thing (Score:4, Insightful)
It's frustrating that only the OS-provided solutions (Safari and IE) are doing this right by handing it off to the OS. The notion that your browser needs to reimplement everything, including video rendering, is what leads to the bloatware we have today. The whole point of having an OS is to have a common framework and API layer that all applications hosted on it can access. Instead, Firefox, Chrome and Opera are all re-developing their own video rendering, for each platform they exist on, AND each one needs to write its own video-card accelerator layers for each platform it exists on.
Re: (Score:2)
The QtWebkit based browsers and KHTML also hands it off the OS (through Phonon and/or GStreamer).
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Shocking: Apple and MS are doing the right thin (Score:5, Interesting)
A good point here - Google has a lot of "green" initiatives (reduced-power computing, huge solar cell farms on their roof, etc.)
This approach is NOT a "green" approach - a "green" approach is one that makes use of the large amount of hardware acceleration infrastructure now deployed for the existing standard codecs.
WebM/VP8 will force a non-accelerated CPU-only rendering path on ALL existing hardware. This eats power compared to hardware acceleration. (Look at how well most Android devices handle H.264 thanks to hardware accelerated decoding.)
Google is being hypocritical and inconsistent here. Great summary at http://daringfireball.net/2011/01/simple_questions [daringfireball.net] - Key here is, HTML5 was supposed to at least partially break Adobe's stranglehold on the web by moving some content away from Flash. Google just killed any hope of that - They talk about supporting open codecs, but they still bundle Adobe Flash (which includes H.264 support) with Chrome?
As a result of this mess, content providers are starting to shy away from HTML5 and stick with what "just works" (for the most part) - SmugMug was starting to consider HTML5, but Google's latest decision has them moving back to Flash.
They're comming (Score:4, Insightful)
Over 20 hardware manufacturers are working on WebM hardware implementations, including Broadcom and Qualcomm, the two biggest chipset makers for mobile devices. When H.264 was standardized, all computer implementations were done in software as well. The hardware acceleration came later. Three years ago, HD-DVD and BluRay war was still undecided, and smartphones that played streaming video all but non-existent. Who knows how much inroads WebM could make in the next three years.
SmugMug was starting to consider HTML5, but Google's latest decision has them moving back to Flash.
Firefox and Opera don't support H.264 either, and they have much greater market share than Google. So if this announcement changes anyone's plans, they obviously hadn't thought them through very well to begin with. Either you support two formats for the next several years until everything is sorted out, or you exclude a large portion of your audience. This is a draft standard we are talking about. You should expect early adopter issues.
Re: (Score:3)
WebM/VP8 will force a non-accelerated CPU-only rendering path on ALL existing hardware
So what? Tomorrow this will change. The future of the open Internet is of somewhat more consequence than battery usage over the next thirty six months, especially considering we are talking about a HTML tag for which support isn't yet widely deployed in the first place.
If battery usage is such a consideration, just stick with "evil empire" codecs like H.264 and pseudo standards like Flash in the interim. As has been ment
Re:Shocking: Apple and MS are doing the right thin (Score:5, Informative)
You're missing what the GP said - no-one's suggesting forcing anyone to buy an OS, the suggestion is to hand off video playback to the OS. In this case, the right thing to do would be to release it to a video decoding layer for Linux and then call it from Firefox/Chrome.
Cheers,
Ian
User codecs vs. system-wide codecs (Score:5, Insightful)
In this case, the right thing to do would be to release it to a video decoding layer for Linux
Which would end up supporting only MPEG-1, Theora, and VP8 given the patent policies of many GNU/Linux distributors. And for each operating system, how should the browser direct the user to find and install appropriate codecs? Do video decoding layers for Linux even support codecs installed by one user for that user as opposed to codecs installed by root for all users? Most of the tutorials I found were for .deb installation on Ubuntu, which is always system-wide.
Re: (Score:3)
> Do video decoding layers for Linux even support codecs installed by one user
> for that user as opposed to codecs installed by root for all users?
Why does it matter? It "just works".
That's why as an Ubuntu user I see the whining about codec "chaos" to be such a joke. The video player is just like a web browser when it comes to plugins.
Funnier still is the fact that "simple and easy" plugin management for web browsers on the other platforms has existed pretty much forever.
So the problem of "how do I p
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
FFMPeg is GPL [wikipedia.org]
x264 is also GPL [wikipedia.org]
Do I need to go on and list a few more, or is two enough to snub your ignorance?
Re:Shocking: Apple and MS are doing the right thin (Score:5, Interesting)
Why are you lying?
FFMPeg is GPL
x264 is also GPL
Do I need to go on and list a few more, or is two enough to snub your ignorance?
He's not lying, he's just over-simplfying.
So far, software patents have not been legally applied to source code because source code has been clearly defined as "speech" as it is a means for people to express ideas.
So it is legal to write and distribute source code.
But, in most countries with software patents, it is illegal to actually use a binary built from that source code.
Its just the compiling it yourself or downloading it from a country without software patents makes it pretty much impossible to get caught.
Coral Cache Link (Score:2)
Open Standards != Open Source (Score:5, Informative)
There are open standards, and open source, and they are not the same. The IETF, for example (subject to yesterdays Birthday Article [slashdot.org]) deals with open standards. Linux, by contrast, is open source.
An open standard means that no one party controls the generation of the standard, and that the standard is openly available. Generally, open standards are developed by SDOs (Standards Defining Organizations, such as the IETF or the W3C). As a general rule "anyone" can participate in their creation (but this may require that you or your company be a member of some organization or have some other qualifications). Many open standards have patent encumbrances. Typically, SDOs seek RAND [wikipedia.org] (Reasonable and NonDiscriminatory) licensing terms; some even require a particular patent licensing policy as a condition for participation. The IETF, however, requires disclosure [ietf.org] and seeks, but does not strictly require, RAND terms. While an open standard may have some code associated with it, typically the entire point of an open standard is to allow you to go off and write your own code, generally under whatever code license you want. This is how the Internet was developed.
Open source means that the source is licensed by GPL [opensource.org] or BSD> [opensource.org] or some similar licensing. Now, generally open source means that the code is available, but in practice many open source projects are more or less closed to outside participation, and they frequently do not provide documentation sufficient to replicate what they are doing.
Re: (Score:3)
And generally speaking Open Standards are even more important than Open Source. Especially in the long run.
Re: (Score:3)
Most web server software has always been gratis.
The first major web server was the public domain httpd by NCSA.
It was later supplanted by apache, which is a play on words of the patches layered on top of httpd.
http://httpd.apache.org/ABOUT_APACHE.html [apache.org]
According to Wikipedia:
Since April 1996 Apache has been the most popular HTTP server software in use.
Before April 1996, that title belonged to NCSA httpd.
Mosiac and lynx were free and available before Netscape. Even IE and IIS were gratis after a fashion, if you used Windows (which most did) they were bundled with the OS. If you didn't
Great (Score:2)
This knee jerk reaction is amusing to watch (Score:2, Flamebait)
For years Slashdot seems to have yearned for a wider adoption of Vorbis and Theora. Theora didn't quite cut it, so Google replaced it with VP8, and has thrown its weight (and its patent portfolio) behind Vorbis as well. But since it's Google, now Slashdot seems to support a royalty and patent encumbered h264 instead of pining for WebM (which is VP8 + Vorbis wrapped into a Matroska container) to win, for which there's a non-exclusive, perpetual, royalty free license on everything, including fucking _ASIC des
Re: (Score:2)
"Flaunt" (Score:2)
Yeah I'd totally hit some of that hot piece of ass Apple is flaunting in Main road.
Oh wait I got confused. They are utilising an upgraded processor in their upcoming iPhone refresh.
Dear Editors (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Breaking that lock is very important. It means a lot. It's a must. H.264 will survive. VP8 will be a cost effective alternative. Nothing keeps it from being incorporated into hardware.
Google won't lock us in with their alternative. When you have no choice you will be locked. when you have a choice it is hard to lock. But the alternative must be viable and gain enough market penetration to make a difference (and the pre-existing lock can't be so entrenched that no one can compete with it).
Re:Ambiguity (Score:5, Insightful)
H.264 is closed. VP8 is open.
How is H.264 closed? The spec is available for any one to buy and implement. If H.264 is "closed" than so can be said for the vast majority of ISO standards.
Re:Ambiguity (Score:5, Interesting)
If H.264 is "closed" than so can be said for the vast majority of ISO standards.
Not sure if it's a vast majority, but a lot of ISO standards are closed. Even so closed that you cannot read them without paying a shitload of money.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It's not free for anyone to buy and implement.
So then ODF or C++ are not "open" either, right? One has to pay to get a copy of the spec for those technologies. Secondly, you can freely implement H.264 and release it in source form. MPEGLA has applied an exemption to source code for quite some time which is why, for example, the XviD or x264 people face no problems.
Secondly, even if you are distrbuting binary encoders/decoders you don't pay anything until you hit about 50,000 units shipped.
I can't for example buy and implement it in my app which is released under gpl
And yet there are plenty of apps released as GPL using the GP
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think it's a matter of them 'exempting' it, they simply can't do anything about source code.
Re: (Score:2)
that's not the issue. The issue is that there are still parts you can have to pay royalties on.
If it isn't free, then it's not free. there is no imbetween just because the end user doesn't have to pay.
Meanwhile, if people implement VP8 encoders/decoders? There's no question of "how much do I have to pay?" People just do it. Th
Re:Ambiguity (Score:4, Insightful)
Secondly, even if you are distrbuting binary encoders/decoders you don't pay anything until you hit about 50,000 units shipped.
This is the problem with x264. If x264 becomes the de facto standard, two guys in a garage will never be able to develop their own browser that competes with all the current market leaders, because the second it starts to gain widespread acceptance it becomes subject to royalty fees that two guys in a garage will never be able to afford. The x264 standard may be open, but you can't do anything useful with that standard without paying up.
Sure they can (Score:4, Insightful)
This is the problem with x264. If x264 becomes the de facto standard, two guys in a garage will never be able to develop their own browser that competes with all the current market leaders
Any browser writer could implement the video tag in such a way they fall back to system supported codecs. Then they need not pay anyone even though on all platforms you would support h.264 playback.
Re: (Score:3)
Secondly, even if you are distrbuting binary encoders/decoders you don't pay anything until you hit about 50,000 units shipped.
That pretty much makes the x.264 decoder illegal.
No one is saying that you can't pay as much money as you want to use a specific video codec. All we are saying is that if I want to do an html5 cloud based video app (editing encoding etc.) or website for my business or for the general public, then I should be able to use the basic tag without having to worry about getting the pants sued off me.
Actually back in August the MPEGLA said they will NEVER charge royalties for freely streamed H.264 videos.
Actually back in August they also announced that with the exception of free end user viewing all other licensi
Re: (Score:2)
The point is that H.264 is no less "closed" than other standards which are called "open".
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that is isn't royalty free (with free meaning both price and freedom).
Unless you are charging for the videos, and even then you have to hit a pretty high volume, it IS royalty free indefinitely.
Re:Ambiguity (Score:4, Insightful)
H.264 is an open standard, governed by standards bodies (ISO & ITU). It is not, however, a 'free' standard, in either the "beer" or "freedom" sense.
VP8 is a proprietary standard, governed by Google, and developed by a single company. It is, allegedly, a 'free' standard in both the beer and freedom sense - and it's worth noting that there are some concerns as to whether or not this standard would survive an IP infringement claim, making it less "free" than we're asked to assume.
You're right, the definitions are quite clear. I'm just not sure why you seem to think it's opposite day when labelling H.264 as closed and VP8 as open. Until Google submits VP8 to ISO or some other standards body, it's not an "open" standard, it's a "Google says it's cool so I guess that's what we should do," standard. It would seem that you're conflating "royalty-free" with "open."
Re: (Score:2)
The same applies to H.264.
Re: (Score:3)
No, they are not both "open standards". That term means something. H.264 is an open standard - it went through the standardization process, with all the feedback solicitation and ratification that that implies. VP8 is a "proprietary standard" that was developed by one company, and then dumped into the public domain by another.
I would think that readers of a site that roundly derided Microsoft's OOXML "standard" would understand the difference between an "open standard" and a "proprietary standard that's