Google and Microsoft trying to snub out the competition

[Grant A.]

After a lot of thinking and research, I eventually wrote this blog post (http://grant931.wordpress.com/2009/07/03/are-google-and-microsoft-attempting-to-snuff-out-the-competition/) on the subject.

Someone needs to teach these two a lesson.

[SunnyRabbiera]

Yeh if that says what will happen then I think we need to make a stand against google.

[credobyte]

Unless Google owns Flash, YouTube is in safety.

[Tipped OuT]

After a lot of thinking and research, I eventually wrote this blog post (http://grant931.wordpress.com/2009/07/03/are-google-and-microsoft-attempting-to-snuff-out-the-competition/) on the subject.

Someone needs to teach these two a lesson.

Um, not be a bug, but your blog title should be "Is Google and Microsoft Attempting To Snub Out The Competition?"

At least for me, it reads better.

[phrostbyte]

After a lot of thinking and research, I eventually wrote this blog post (http://grant931.wordpress.com/2009/07/03/are-google-and-microsoft-attempting-to-snuff-out-the-competition/) on the subject.

Someone needs to teach these two a lesson.

Google already uses H.264 for YouTube (for "HD" content). It just played in the Flash player.

Google only using H.264 because other the BBC/Dirac it's got the best quality per bit of any codec. If they used Theora it would take more bandwidth to have same quality. That is a major issue for a site like YouTube.

Trust me Google and Microsoft do not get along, AT ALL. Google doesn't give a crap if the whole world went open source tomorrow, selling shrink wrapped software is not their business model. If anything they like open source because it pisses off their rival Microsoft. The also use Linux extensively internally, the entire Google infrastructure is Linux based, and they use many off the self products like Python and Java to write web stuff in.

Google will continue to use Flash and probably will offer an HTML5 option, but will not move away from Flash unless all the major browsers (INCLUDING IE) implement HTML5 video support.

[sidious1741]

I have a very hot temper when it comes to Microsoft expanding with unfair business practices. They already own over 50% of the of computer users. I've always been a google fan and a HUGE youtube fan. If Google gets away with this I'll have to watch youtube on a different comp because I refuse to cooperate with such an unfair tactic.

[ad_267]

Um, not be a bug, but your blog title should be "Is Google and Microsoft Attempting To Snub Out The Competition?"

At least for me, it reads better.

No it really doesn't. is (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/is)/are (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/are). It's plural so it's are. If the title was "Is Google Attempting To Snuff Out The Competition?" then that would be correct.

Also, I read an interesting article recently comparing H.256 with Ogg Theora showing that there wasn't much difference in quality between the two formats with the same file size, and Theora even looked better in some situations. I'm not sure what Google's reasoning is for wanting H.256 over Theora.

[monsterstack]

Microsoft and Apple are the biggest players trying to squash Ogg, not Google. Microsoft invested a tonne of money into Silverlight, and Apple invested a tonne of money into Quicktime codecs. Neither company wants to have to support something that won't earn them any royalties. Mozilla, Opera and others don't want to support the patented codecs because the risk of having to pay royalties to someone is too great. Google, for all of their dithering over Youtube, has the only browser currently commited to supporting both Theora and h.264. They have enough money to do it.


Google only using H.264 because other the BBC/Dirac it's got the best quality per bit of any codec. If they used Theora it would take more bandwidth to have same quality. That is a major issue for a site like YouTube.

Have you been to Youtube lately? They don't really care about quality, there :P But seriously, quality issues are insignificant: compatibility is the biggest problem for Google. They just can't go with a codec that hardly anyone supports.

If Chrome and Firefox somehow magically end up taking 70% of the browser share, it might just happen. But not before.

[Gizenshya]

^^^ beat me to it. Yes, "are" is correct because there is more than one subject.

I'm curious.. why are you limiting the topic to those two companies? There are many examples of this.

There are now only a handful of news orgs (holding companies, or whatever they like to call their kind) now (this is a far bigger problem, IMO), where there used to be many. Journalism quality has gone to **** because of it. Ignorance is bliss, eh? Although, there are smaller ones shooting up to try to fill various voids left by mergers and acquisitions (wikileaks.org being a very important one). But they are usually very small and underfunded (they have to be to be unbiased... usually donation-funded).

AT&T. 'nuff said

AOL (and whatever holding company they are, or are a part of now)

political parties in general...

European Union (ie, loss of sovereignty of member states in lieu of weak and inhumane basic principles)

... I could do this all day. But I see no point in complaining about them, and saying that they shouldn't do that... It is like the "war on drugs." The very fact that there is a war on drugs places HUGE demand on a market that, legal or not, will be met somehow. Offering effective rewards (very high profit) encourages these practices, and does not discourage them. The same thing is true for corporations.

Markets are finite. Growth in market share and profits in excess of growth in a market simply and obviously cannot go on forever. It does not matter how good you are at what you do, or how powerful your company is. They must expand: Merge. Acquire. Horizontal expansion into conglomerates. Vertically Integrate/Expand. Flatten out (and other forms of becoming 'lean'-- like cutting out middle management).

What should they do? Admit the obvious? "Today Google announces that it will stop its growth strategy in place of maintaining status quo market share [i]ad infinitum[i]." Not a chance in hell. They are forced to grow as fast as possible, in a macroeconomy that tries to stabilize at 3-4% annual growth rate. Even the most conservative analysis will admit that business has grown far faster than this. It must collapse catastrophically, buy itself time (see the federal reserve system, loss of backed currency,etc., etc.), or... or?

Everyone knows that it cannot go on at that rate forever. But the forces that be are relentless.

I'm not offering a solution... just pointing out the problem. This just barely skims the surface. For each point, you can extrapolate it out and see the extremes.. and that something must change before then.

[Sealbhach]

I'd rather be tyrannized by Google than the current mob. At least they don't have a (near) monopoly on the OS market.

.

[MikeTheC]

"Snub" out the competition? How do they do that? With their noses in the air standing on the bridge of their 200 foot yacht wearing yuppy New England nautical fashions and drinking $5000 champagne while doing so?

[mynameinc]

"Snub" out the competition? How do they do that? With their noses in the air standing on the bridge of their 200 foot yacht wearing yuppy New England nautical fashions and drinking $5000 champagne while doing so?

I'm adding that to my signature.

[Grant A.]

Google will continue to use Flash and probably will offer an HTML5 option, but will not move away from Flash unless all the major browsers (INCLUDING IE) implement HTML5 video support.

Actually, Google is currently testing the possibility of only using h.264.

[Giant Speck]

I really wish there was a credible source to the information in this blog post. It doesn't even seem to give any sources at all.

[Grant A.]

I really wish there was a credible source to the information in this blog post. It doesn't even seem to give any sources at all.

Whoops, forgot about those. I'll add them to the blog.


Slashdot article about YouTube replacing Flash and Theora with h.264 (http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/06/14/1649237/YouTube-HTML5-and-Comparing-H264-With-Theora?art_pos=11)

GNU GPL (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html)

Wikipedia article on h.264 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264)

Anti-trust probe being launched on Google (http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20090702/doj-officially-opens-antitrust-investigation-into-google-book-settlement/)

[PurposeOfReason]

Somebody walked outside without their tinfoil hat today. ;)

[michaeldt]

Aren't the codecs available on a similar licence to Flash? In other words, the codec is freely available for anyone to use? If so, what's the problem? Firefox has had built in functionality to download and install proprietary codecs for years. There's no problem with the GPL unless they actually wanted to ship the codec with the browser, which they don't need to. In fact, most software which requires codecs tends to download what it needs when it needs it rather than just shipping with a load of codecs.

Over-reaction ftw!!

Microsoft and Apple are the one's hindering the development of web standards. By refusing to support open source codecs in HTML5 they are clinging onto their proprietary code. The solution is to boycott their software, give open source browsers enough market share that web developers can say to hell with IE and safari, I'm going to use ogg with HTML5. Of course, most here already use open source browsers, so it's time to get everyone else to as well!

[koshatnik]

I love the interweb. I love the way that one piece of partial information, incorrectly reported, can create such a bounty of "facts" and moral indignation within 5 seconds of being posted.

Truck on.

[sdowney717]

http://tech.yahoo.com/news/infoworld/20090616/tc_infoworld/79291
Open standards html5 I like it:p. but it is years away from full implementation in IE. and IE not supporting will cause developers to have to do extra coding.

[.Maleficus.]

i love the interweb. I love the way that one piece of partial information, incorrectly reported, can create such a bounty of "facts" and moral indignation within 5 seconds of being posted.

Truck on.
qft.

[Mateo]

The blog post reeks of paranoia.... for one it doesn't say anything about Microsoft in the article. Secondly, it assumes that all decisions made by software companies is about extending their browser market %. What is with the open source community and it's obsession with web browsers!

[amitabhishek]

+1 for Google
-1 for Microsoft

[sdlynx]

Wow I didn't know this was going on. Well for the Microsoft and Bing thing we all know that won't last cause Google is the best search engine (at least IMO).

But changing youtube to h.264 is just cruel. What about linux users? We can't even use chrome anyway... I say if they switch to that we stop going to youtube. Not very many non-techy people use chrome to begin with and there goes almost everybody who uses youtube. IF we have to watch a youtube video, how about we use Safari (take that Google :p)?

[Grant A.]

The blog post reeks of paranoia.... for one it doesn't say anything about Microsoft in the article.

*cough*



Ironically, Google is the victim in this next problem. Microsoft is currently switching the search default from Google to Bing on Windows computers, via updates. Yet another cheap attempt at monopoly abuse.

With the European Union and United States Department of Justice looking to destroy a couple of monopolies, Google and Microsoft better quit it, or face the consequences.


Don't TL;DR and then post here. Seriously, I'm getting tired of that crap.



What is with the open source community and it's obsession with web browsers!

Google Chrome's old EULA said that Google had rights to whatever was posted to the Internet via Chrome. Now imagine if they pulled that stunt with Firefox's marketshare.

[Closed_Port]

Your blog post has to be one the most uninformed posts I had the displeasure to read for a long time. It's filled with hyperbole, halftruths and plain falsehoods.

But let's look at some of your points, shall we?


At the moment, they are trying to switch YouTube from Flash to h.264.
No, they are not. They made one test page with the html5 video element that uses h.264.


The problem with this is that, no browser can legally play h.264 besides Google Chrome and Safari.
Even if your argument about firefox not being able to support it would be true, which it isn't, what would stop Opera, Microsoft, etc. from getting a license and support it? Nothing?


Most notably, Firefox, the browser with 22% of the browser marketshare, will never be able to play h.264 videos because, if it did, it would have to drop the GPL from its tri-license.
Well, the easy answer to this would of course be to simply drop the GPL at least for those builds that can play h.264.
But wait, there is an even easier solution. Simply use the codecs installed on the system and voila: You can play it and still be GPL.


Originally, Google was going to use the unencumbered by patents, and equally high quality, Ogg Theora codec as their replacement for flash, but decided to switch to h.264.
Could you please link to where google originally commited to Ogg Theora? You can't? That's because they never did.
And Ogg Theora isn't equally high quality as h.264. Though it has been getting better even the theora-devs acknowledge this.


Being unencumbered, Ogg Theora can be played on all browsers, but that wouldn’t be good for Chrome’s marketshare to have fair competition.
You know what's funny? Just yesterday theora got dropped from the html5 spec (which sucks, imho, but that's another story). Why, you might ask? Was it teh eviil goooogle?
Nope, it was mainly Apple and one of their resaons was that they were not so sure about theora being unencumbered:

Apple refuses to implement Ogg Theora in Quicktime by default (as used by Safari), citing lack of hardware support and an uncertain patent landscape.
http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-June/020620.html


Apart from all the hyperbole and factual errors of your posts, what really makes me angry is that posts like yours prevent a meaningful and informed debate on something that I think is very important for a free web and for free software. Having a free video format that simply works on the web and can be easily implemented by any browser on any platform would be a huge step forward for anyone using "alternative" operating systems and browsers. Unfortunately, posts like yours won't help achieve this, on the contrary.

[Grant A.]

No, they are not. They made one test page with the html5 video element that uses h.264.


Read my sources.



Even if your argument about firefox not being able to support it would be true, which it isn't, what would stop Opera, Microsoft, etc. from getting a license and support it? Nothing?


And what would happen in the meantime? Microsoft and Opera are as slow as molasses when it comes to development.



Well, the easy answer to this would of course be to simply drop the GPL at least for those builds that can play h.264.
But wait, there is an even easier solution. Simply use the codecs installed on the system and voila: You can play it and still be GPL.


Yes, and let's violate the law in the process.



Could you please link to where google originally commited to Ogg Theora? You can't? That's because they never did.
And Ogg Theora isn't equally high quality as h.264. Though it has been getting better even the theora-devs acknowledge this.


Again, read my sources, and the sources' sources.



You know what's funny? Just yesterday theora got dropped from the html5 spec (which sucks, imho, but that's another story). Why, you might ask? Was it teh eviil goooogle?


I never said that Google was trying to remove Theora from the web standards. Don't put words in my mouth.



Nope, it was mainly Apple and one of their resaons was that they were not so sure about theora being unencumbered:

http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-June/020620.html


Shocker, a big corporation spreads FUD. What's next, are you going to tell me that the ocean is really, really, really wet?



Apart from all the hyperbole and factual errors of your posts, what really makes me angry is that posts like yours prevent a meaningful and informed debate on something that I think is very important for a free web and for free software. Having a free video format that simply works on the web and can be easily implemented by any browser on any platform would be a huge step forward for anyone using "alternative" operating systems and browsers. Unfortunately, posts like yours won't help achieve this, on the contrary.

On the contrary, this very post is a debate.

[Closed_Port]

Read my sources.

I did and there's nothing in there backing up your claim. But maybe you can provide a quote and a link. Thanks in advance.



And what would happen in the meantime? Microsoft and Opera are as slow as molasses when it comes to development.

Nice. So instead of acknowledging that you were wrong, you change the subject. And to call Opera slow as molasses when it comes to development is outright funny. Btw., there's a reason why opera doesn't implement h.264 and they stated it and had you researched the subject of your little rant, you'd even know about it.



Yes, and let's violate the law in the process.

Ah, again changing the subject, are we? Nice.
Anyway, no Mozilla would not violate the law, no, I would not violate the law not living in the US, no OEMs providing the codecs from fluendo would not violate the law, etc...



Again, read my sources, and the sources' sources.

And again, your sources provide nothing that backs up your claim. And btw., do you really want to call a /.-article a source?



I never said that Google was trying to remove Theora from the web standards. Don't put words in my mouth.

Rereading what I wrote it's clear that I never claimed nor insunated that you made that claim. I simply showed that you were incredibly uniformed about the subject by pointing out that there is realy news on the subject.



Shocker, a big corporation spreads FUD. What's next, are you going to tell me that the ocean is really, really, really wet?

I take it you think that stuttering FUD and making a snide remark is a good substitute for a legal and informed argument?



On the contrary, this very post is a debate.
No, it's uninformed and factually challenged rambling.

[Grant A.]

I did and there's nothing in there backing up your claim. But maybe you can provide a quote and a link. Thanks in advance.

Obviously you didn't, as you wouldn't be asking me for a quote if you did.



Nice. So instead of acknowledging that you were wrong, you change the subject. And to call Opera slow as molasses when it comes to development is outright funny.

I didn't change the subject. Google Chrome's marketshare could very well explode in the time it takes for the other browser developers to get h.264 support.


Btw., there's a reason why opera doesn't implement h.264 and they stated it and had you researched the subject of your little rant, you'd even know about it.


Ah, so if you know about why Opera doesn't want to implement it, then why did you mention other browser developers just adding support? Surely, Opera is another browser developer.



Ah, again changing the subject, are we? Nice.
Anyway, no Mozilla would not violate the law, no, I would not violate the law not living in the US, no OEMs providing the codecs from fluendo would not violate the law, etc...

I am not changing the subject, as you just suggested that we just install the codecs anyways, which would be against the law, without the proper patent license. There is no way in hell I, or any other user would pay money to watch YouTube. Clearly you don't grasp the concept of a "Free as in beer and freedom" browser, too well.




And again, your sources provide nothing that backs up your claim. And btw., do you really want to call a /.-article a source?


*ahem* Read the /. article's sources. Again, this is more evidence that you never actually read them.



Rereading what I wrote it's clear that I never claimed nor insunated that you made that claim. I simply showed that you were incredibly uniformed about the subject by pointing out that there is realy news on the subject.

No, it is quite clear that you did make that point, so quit trying to cover your tracks.



I take it you think that stuttering FUD and making a snide remark is a good substitute for a legal and informed argument?


Why yes, yes I do. If this wasn't an informed argument, then I wouldn't have sources, of which have sources themselves.



No, it's uninformed and factually challenged rambling.

Yes, uninformed with sources. :-k

[Closed_Port]

Obviously you didn't, as you wouldn't be asking me for a quote if you did.

Look, it's actually a very, very simple concept. You make a claim and say that it is backed up by a source (a /.-article...). Looking at your source, I can find nothing in it that backs up your claim. Now you've got an easy choice: Either prove that I'm wrong by simply quoting what backs up your claim or accuse me of not reading your sources. It's easy to see that the first choice would be more productive, but unfortunately you went with the second one.




I didn't change the subject. Google Chrome's marketshare could very well explode in the time it takes for the other browser developers to get h.264 support.

Look, it's again very simple: You claimed that other browser couldn't implement h.264, I pointed out that you are wrong and you changed the subject.



Ah, so if you know about why Opera doesn't want to implement it, then why did you mention other browser developers just adding support? Surely, Opera is another browser developer.

Look, and it's simple again: Not wanting to implement something and not being able to implement something are two very different things.



I am not changing the subject, as you just suggested that we just install the codecs anyways, which would be against the law, without the proper patent license.

Look, it isn't that complicated. I gave several examples where installing the codec isn't illegal and I pointed out that Mozilla wouldn't do anything illegal. It's not that hard to grasp now, is it? And as your initial point was that Mozilla couldn't implement it legally, you were again shown to be wrong.



*ahem* Read the /. article's sources. Again, this is more evidence that you never actually read them.

See above.



No, it is quite clear that you did make that point, so quit trying to cover your tracks.

Hehe, well, as anyone can read what I wrote and anyone who can actually read will be able to see that I didn't do what you accuse me of doing, let's leave this one to posterity...



Why yes, yes I do. If this wasn't an informed argument, then I wouldn't have sources, of which have sources themselves.

Look, it's very simple again: Simply citing sources doesn't make your argument informed. For example, wouldn't you agree that there are sources out there with different merits? And let's not forget that you frequently make claims that are not backed up by your sources (which consist basically of a /.-article...).



Yes, uninformed with sources. :-k
Sad but true.

[.Maleficus.]

Just pointing out Slashdot's sources -

1. Another blog. Post has very little to do with your blog post, beyond linking to Google's HTML5 demo page and stating which browsers support HTML5.
2. Another Slashdot article where Theora was reported "ahead" of h.264 in a test that was debunked and not fair at all (they essentially compared apples and oranges).
3. A mailing list.
4. A comparison of Theora and h.264 using Youtube as the encoder where the author clearly states (multiple times in fact) that Youtube is less than ideal for comparisons. If the author isn't convinced, you shouldn't call it a source.

Anyways, I'm happy to see you edited the post replacing h.256 with h.264 and added the sources (even though I don't agree with any of them).

[Gizenshya]

*continues to much on his bag of popcorn*