The HTML5 War

[Ric_NYC]

YouTube's video choice prompts Firefox fightback


Firefox isn't supporting the H.264 video standard because it's patented and the patent owners want fees: it's not free. But if Google and YouTube make it ubiquitous, will users have a real choice? Should they care?


YouTube has recently announced an experimental HTML5 player that uses the H.264 codec for video instead of a format based on Adobe Flash. You might think that would be applauded as a move towards open standards, but as I noted briefly last week, the new system works with Google Chrome and Apple Safari browsers, but not Mozilla's Firefox. It doesn't support H.264.

This is a critical issue for Mozilla, because it risks losing market share. If users find they can play YouTube videos using Chrome or Safari but they won't play in Firefox, some users are going to switch browsers.

Mozilla's problem is that H.264 is encumbered by patents: it's not a royalty-free format. And according to Robert O'Callahan in a Saturday blog post on Video, Freedom And Mozilla (with the rider that it's "nothing but my own opinion as a developer of video-related Mozilla code!"), licensing the patents "would violate principles of free software that we strongly believe in." He says:

"Users just want video to work. You Mozilla people are such idealists! Yes, that is the reason for Mozilla to exist. Anyway, in the short term, our users probably won't be affected much since Flash fallback will still work. In the long term, I think freedom will ultimately benefit users (not just Firefox users, but all users)."

The same day, Mike Shaver, Mozilla's vice president of engineering, explained why Mozilla doesn't license the H.264 codec, and his post included the following:

"Mozilla has decided differently, in part because there is no apparent means for us to license H.264 under terms that would cover other users of our technology, such as Linux distributors, or people in affiliated projects like Wikimedia or the Participatory Culture Foundation. Even if we were to pay the $5,000,000 annual licensing cost for H.264, and we were to not care about the spectre of license fees for internet distribution of encoded content, or about content and tool creators, downstream projects would be no better off."

As Shaver points out, that kind of fee would have made the success of the web impossible. Mozilla would never have got going if it had had to pay $5m or so to use HTML, CSS, JavaScript and similar technologies.

The web has had to cope with patented technologies before. The main examples are the GIF image file format and the MP3 music file format, both of which became ubiquitous. These were discussed by Christopher Blizzard, Mozilla's Open Source Evangelist, in a long post: HTML5 video and H.264 – what history tells us and why we're standing with the web.

After GIF became popular, Blizzard says "Unisys was asking some web site owners $5,000-$7,500 to able to use GIFs on their sites." He says: "We're looking at the same situation with H.264, except at a far larger scale."

MP3 was also liberally licensed in its early days (indeed, many people thought it was unlicensed), but again, there was an effort to monetise it as it became ubiquitous. Today, says Blizzard:

"If you look at the public published rates for a couple of the MP3 licensors (and there are more than just two) someone who wanted to use it would be looking at a royalty rate of about $1/downloaded unit. So if you were doing, say, two million downloads a day you would be looking at about $2,000,000 per day just to have permission from those companies to include an MP3 decoder. Could you negotiate a lower rate? Probably. But that gives you a sense of the scale if you're a small provider in a world where getting started on the web is hard and you don't have much negotiating power."

It looks as though H.264 is developing in a similar way. And the more widespread it becomes, the more power the patent-owners will have to extract money from suppliers who use it.

Free software and open source supporters will, of course, say that all this is unnecessary: YouTube should simply use the Ogg/Theora codec that offers comparable quality to H.264 (it might be worse, but not a lot worse). And as user Underhill comments on O'Callahan's post: "there is a pretty huge practical difference between 'Someone might have patents on Theora that we don't know about, and might sue' and 'MPEG-LA has patents on H.264 and *will* sue'."

There's a petition to get YouTube to support Ogg/Theora at
http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/oggandyoutube/

Because Google dominates the web, and YouTube dominates web video, it looks as though the decision to use H.264 will mean we all end up using it whether we like it or not. That might not be the case. Blizzard says:

"I, like many others, have reason to believe that H.264 will not be Google's final choice. There's good reason to believe this: they are purchasing On2. On2 has technologies that are supposed to be better than H.264. If Google owns the rights to those technologies they are very likely to use them on their properties to promote them and are also likely to license them in a web-friendly (ie royalty-free) fashion. Google actually has a decent history of doing this."

Web video has never really been open, unencumbered and free. We've had Real Networks RM format, Apple's QuickTime, Microsoft's Windows Media Video (now standardised as VC-1), the DivX and XviD codecs, and Adobe Flash among others. There might never be one open standard, simply because some content owners will want to include DRM (Digital Rights Management) copy restrictions.

However, the web would benefit from having an open, unencumbered and free video format that enabled HTML programmers to include a video as easily as they now include a headline or a photo, wouldn't it? How do we get to that?


http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2010/jan/25/firefox-open-video-support

[rajeev1204]

Doesnt firefox (mozilla) have to pay royalties for using flash?

Otherwise, a very nice post this.Also, i believe firefox will not play it ootb,but it will happen with a plugin similar to flash.

Kills the point of html though.

[Ylon]

the hopes in HTML5 was, indeed, some free from these kind of licensing (plugin/software installer just to have a .dll/.ro).




better detoxify from google/gmail/youtube.. you never know: options were never that bad.

[Xbehave]

the hopes in HTML5 was, indeed, some free from these kind of licensing (plugin/software installer just to have a .dll/.ro)
I'd rather hold my pageviews and go to sites like dailymotion for videos than use a h.264 plugin, but i'm fairly sure youtube will convert their vids to theora, but it will take time.

[MaindotC]

Doesnt firefox (mozilla) have to pay royalties for using flash?

I can't believe that to be true seeing as how it is the user's option to have flash present. If you're correct, though, could you please post a reference link? Thanks!

[rajeev1204]

I can't believe that to be true seeing as how it is the user's option to have flash present. If you're correct, though, could you please post a reference link? Thanks!

Its a genuine question Alan :) Not a reply masked as a question.


P.S.Just a little confused about this whole thing with firefox and html5.If i remember correctly, they were the one advertising html5 with their browser 3.5 when it launched.

I think the OP is probably saying that only youtube with its h 264 codec wont be played by firefox,not other html5 since html is indeed an open standard.

raj.

[Mornedhel]

Its a genuine question Alan :) Not a reply masked as a question.

I seriously doubt that Mozilla needs to pay Adobe for the rights to have its architecture compatible with the installation of a plugin distributed by Adobe.



P.S.Just a little confused about this whole thing with firefox and html5.If i remember correctly, they were the one advertising html5 with their browser 3.5 when it launched.

I think the OP is probably saying that only youtube with its h 264 codec wont be played by firefox,not other html5 since html is indeed an open standard.

It's very simple. HTML5 has a video tag. Nobody is in agreement over the codecs that should be used. Firefox and Opera implement it with Theora, others with h264.

Recently Youtube took the h264 route, probably mostly because their entire collection is already h264. So you can view the HTML5 videos with some browsers, but not others (Firefox and Opera). So far it looks like h264 will be the winner of the HTML5 video tag format war.

[rajeev1204]

It's very simple. HTML5 has a video tag. Nobody is in agreement over the codecs that should be used. Firefox and Opera implement it with Theora, others with h264.

Recently Youtube took the h264 route, probably mostly because their entire collection is already h264. So you can view the HTML5 videos with some browsers, but not others (Firefox and Opera). So far it looks like h264 will be the winner of the HTML5 video tag format war.

Thanks for the clarification.

[MaindotC]

Its a genuine question Alan :) Not a reply masked as a question.


I don't understand what this means. Is my question genuine or were you asking a question that you think I was questioning the integrity?


I seriously doubt that Mozilla needs to pay Adobe for the rights to have its architecture compatible with the installation of a plugin distributed by Adobe.


One possibility I was considering was maybe Mozilla needed the Flash source code in order to develop a compatible plugin, or to least create an environment that would accept Adobe to make a plugin available in whatever format they choose. So, in that sense Mozilla may have had to pay Adobe for that information.

[rajeev1204]

One possibility I was considering was maybe Mozilla needed the Flash source code in order to develop a compatible plugin, or to least create an environment that would accept Adobe to make a plugin available in whatever format they choose. So, in that sense Mozilla may have had to pay Adobe for that information.


Maybe.Who knows really.

On the first quote,we both had the same question i guess.

[Dragonbite]

Recently Youtube took the h264 route, probably mostly because their entire collection is already h264. So you can view the HTML5 videos with some browsers, but not others (Firefox and Opera). So far it looks like h264 will be the winner of the HTML5 video tag format war.

Sounds like the work of an almost-monopoly?

If this is going to head off to a browser war, now is the time for Mozilla; it is the #2 browser but is facing tough competition from up-and-coming Chrome and it is still in its infancy where it can possibly make a difference.

Linux users should want to use Ogg, as if it increases in popularity/use then better tools for using it will be produced and we won't have to use ubuntu-restricted-extras or w32codecs as much!

[madhi19]

I think it way too soon to freak out it a beta Google might not want to overload it servers with Firefox users for a beta so it make sense just to use the h264 for now than have a Ogg Theora beta later. Mornedhel said that YouTube library is already in h264 so Google must pay one hell of a license for the use of the patent they should be more than willing to switch to an open source alternative or at least develop their own and release it under GPL. Hummm I smell a Google Summer of codes challenge for next Summer.

[MaindotC]

On the first quote,we both had the same question i guess.

But why this choice of words? Did you think I was criticising your question?

[PurposeOfReason]

Once chrome gets a good vimperator going I'm switching. Yeah, being free is great and all but even I, a hardcore geek/nerd, just want video to work.

[rajeev1204]

But why this choice of words? Did you think I was criticising your question?

No i did not.Just thought you didnt understand what i meant.

Ok enough,no more patience now.Back to topic.

[Dragonbite]

I think it way too soon to freak out it a beta Google might not want to overload it servers with Firefox users for a beta so it make sense just to use the h264 for now than have a Ogg Theora beta later.
Why would they want to re-code or redo everything? A lot may depend on the $$$ related to h.264 (if any).

I don't see much incentive for Google to switch because counter the $$$ would be the market share increase for Chrome!

Chances are, a plug-in or something will allow Firefox to play h.264 and that will be the end of the fight. Sad to say, but that's my prediction of what is going to go down.

[madhi19]

Why would they want to re-code or redo everything? A lot may depend on the $$$ related to h.264 (if any).

I don't see much incentive for Google to switch because counter the $$$ would be the market share increase for Chrome!

Chances are, a plug-in or something will allow Firefox to play h.264 and that will be the end of the fight. Sad to say, but that's my prediction of what is going to go down.

Some kind of Firefox restricted repo.

[drclue]

I've been working the Internet since before there was even a Netscape browser, and
back then, most of the money grubbing world answered "Inter What?" when the
discussion turned to Internet technologies.

Now of course monetizing the Internet is a pervasive theme, but the tools to
experience the Internet have always been free and anyone with a better idea
for a browser, mail client or such, simply had to go for it.

The issue with HTML5 video and Mozilla is the CODEC (code Decode) used to
convert the bytes coming over the Internet into a video image in your browser.
This is akin to AM/FM on your radio.

In the case of HTML5 video the AM/FM is represented as H.264 and Ogg
methods of encoding the video image.

Ogg is a CODEC standard that anyone is free to use and is what Mozilla chose to use.

H.264 is a proprietary CODEC standard that requires authors of software
like the FREE Mozilla browser to pay the patent holders millions $$$$ each year to use.

Plugins and such are not going to be a good solution to this issue as the
HTML5 video support involves more than just playing the video , but
affording methods of syncing up the timing and other events of the
video with other content within the page to provide a totally interactive
experience. So basically falling back to flash is not really going to
work well for those wanting to realize the promises of HTML5

This plug-in approach has played havoc with standards like
SVG (Scalable Vector Graphics), which although natively supported in
most browsers has required a plug-in for a few (notably IE), which
has hindered that standard's adoption for years.

I was truly excited when YouTube announced support for HTML5 based video
and totally dismayed when I found that Mozilla was not supported, and
that such support was basically being held hostage for millions of
dollars by the H.264 patent holders.

Google which owns YouTube is really going to have to take their
company motto "Don't Be Evil" to heart and examine closely what
their apparent championing of H.264 means to the Internet and open
source innovation. Even if H.264 is just a "test tube" experiment,
it sends a scary message. Despite the fact that Google chrome, Apple and
other corporate deep pockets can afford the license, it is their
responsibility not to be evil , even if by accident, by
maintaining at least equal support for open standards.

As a BTW, the choice not to specify an open standard CODEC in HTML5
was made by "Ian Hickson" a Google employee. To be fair , that
decision came after not being able to reach a consensus with the parties
like Apple who would need to support HTML5. "Ian Hickson" should
avoid the game of poker since I think he has been had.

Eventually the standards will win if one is brave enough to publish
them and not to be bluffed by folks , be they Microsoft or Apple.
Not standing up to the bluster of these companies risks the
public domain nature of the Internet which is it's life blood.

I would encourage Ian Hickson to take a deep breath , swallow
that lump in the throat and do what he knows to be right, both
in this HTML5 video issue as well as the other items in
HTML5 (he knows of which I speak).

So basically , HTML5 is not a Mozilla issue, but a David vs. Goliath
issue, if Ian Hickson , Google and the like need a slingshot , I'm
sure we can take up a collection.

--Doc

[LightB]

"I, like many others, have reason to believe that H.264 will not be Google's final choice. There's good reason to believe this: they are purchasing On2. On2 has technologies that are supposed to be better than H.264.

The superiority of that new On2 format is vaporware. And what does it matter either way? It's another proprietary format.

I gotta be honest. For me youtube is not an essential vitamin. If there was another big video site that was at least fun and used theora html5, I'd probably stop going to youtube to watch commercial videos with SHAYRETARDS, ShameDawson, smutforwords, and all those things.

[Ric_NYC]

(Adobe) They are lazy. They have all this potential to do interesting things, but they just refuse to do it. They don’t do anything with the approaches that Apple is taking, like Carbon. Apple does not support Flash because it is so buggy. Whenever a Mac crashes more often than not it’s because of Flash. No one will be using Flash. The world is moving to HTML5. Steve Jobs.

[Mornedhel]

The superiority of that new On2 format is vaporware. And what does it matter either way? It's another proprietary format.

I gotta be honest. For me youtube is not an essential vitamin. If there was another big video site that was at least fun and used theora html5, I'd probably stop going to youtube to watch commercial videos with SHAYRETARDS, ShameDawson, smutforwords, and all those things.

Dailymotion has HTML5 support with Theora: http://openvideo.dailymotion.com

[LightB]

Dailymotion has HTML5 support with Theora: http://openvideo.dailymotion.com

I know about it, but the site is a mess and doesn't contain exclusively theora videos. Even right at the top there's hulu flash videos. And it seems like you don't know what you're gonna get, flash or no flash. Speaking of hulu, some saying flash will die, not while hulu is around.

[Dragonbite]

I know about it, but the site is a mess and doesn't contain exclusively theora videos. Even right at the top there's hulu flash videos. And it seems like you don't know what you're gonna get, flash or no flash. Speaking of hulu, some saying flash will die, not while hulu is around.

How if Hulu were to move to HTML5 w/Ogg, then THAT would give a much-needed support and help counter-weigh YouTube! That could, dare I say, even be the tipping point!

[Mornedhel]

How if Hulu were to move to HTML5 w/Ogg, then THAT would give a much-needed support and help counter-weigh YouTube! That could, dare I say, even be the tipping point!

Meh.

No one but Americans (not sure, maybe Canadians as well) can use Hulu anyway. Hulu is not that heavy a player.

[drclue]

How if Hulu were to move to HTML5
w/Ogg, then THAT would give a much-needed support and help counter-weigh YouTube! That could, dare I say, even be the tipping point!

I would tend to think that while HULU support of OGG
would certainly be a positive thing, that it would
in no way be as much of a game changer as Google
correcting the mis-step in it's Internet stewardship
by implementing OGG support in it's YouTube HTML5
offering.

Given that HTML5 allows one to specify multiple
formats for the source data I would think that
OGG should come first and H.264 as the second
option. This would be more in line with the
Google motto "Don't be evil".

H.264 alone would impose a substantial
Internet toll-booth to innovators and set a
precedent that will be hard to undo
later.

--Doc

[LightB]

How if Hulu were to move to HTML5 w/Ogg, then THAT would give a much-needed support and help counter-weigh YouTube! That could, dare I say, even be the tipping point!

Hulu will never do that because html5 doesn't have any content protection schemes like flash does.

I think it's going to be a flash/hulu wedding.

[Merk42]

Posting this in a different thread (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1390647), though it applies here:


If you want to tell Google to use OGG, vote for it (http://productideas.appspot.com/#9/e=3d60a&t=ogg).

In the typical open source way there are hundreds of polls that do the same thing, so rather than have 1 with a lot of votes, there are hundreds with less votes...

[Ric_NYC]

Posting this in a different thread (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1390647), though it applies here:


If you want to tell Google to use OGG, vote for it (http://productideas.appspot.com/#9/e=3d60a&t=ogg).

In the typical open source way there are hundreds of polls that do the same thing, so rather than have 1 with a lot of votes, there are hundreds with less votes...


"Voting is closed".

[cb951303]

Maybe.Who knows really.

On the first quote,we both had the same question i guess.

Flash uses NPAPI and browsers just need to implement an NPAPI host that's it. No need for flash source code.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPAPI

[t0p]

I was truly excited when YouTube announced support for HTML5 based video
and totally dismayed when I found that Mozilla was not supported, and
that such support was basically being held hostage for millions of
dollars by the H.264 patent holders.


Google owns Youtube; and Mozilla (Firefox) is Google's (Chrome) competitor. So I don't think it's outlandish to believe Google want to cut Firefox out of their video thang.



Google which owns YouTube is really going to have to take their
company motto "Don't Be Evil" to heart and examine closely what
their apparent championing of H.264 means to the Internet and open
source innovation. Even if H.264 is just a "test tube" experiment,
it sends a scary message. Despite the fact that Google chrome, Apple and
other corporate deep pockets can afford the license, it is their
responsibility not to be evil , even if by accident, by
maintaining at least equal support for open standards.


Bah! This "don't be evil" crap gets far too much emphasis. Sure, Google aren't as evil as some other corporations. But they are evil nevertheless. Google are no longer a search-and-ads company. With Chrome and ChromeOS they have signalled their intention to grow big in the browser and operating system fields. And Google don't want to be just "big"; they always want to be the biggest.

Google back openness and standards as far as it's in their commercial interest to do so. But they gladly use closed-system stuff when it suits them. I have no problem believing they want to leave Firefox eating Chrome's dust.

It's a shame how so many members of these forums like Chrome and ChromeOS. These new developments are not going to do Free software any favours. Well, not many anyway.

[cb951303]

Hulu will never do that because html5 doesn't have any content protection schemes like flash does.

I think it's going to be a flash/hulu wedding.

what do you mean by protection? I'm pretty sure anything you see on your browser can be downloaded with trivial methods.

if protection means making "stealing the content" harder then there is "mod_secdownload" for lighttpd which creates temporary file URLs that can be used with html5 video.

[cb951303]

why don't browser makers design their video player in way that they can use available codecs on the system? this way they can ship what ever they want and people will take care of the rest?

[Skripka]

why don't browser makers design their video player in way that they can use available codecs on the system? this way they can ship what ever they want and people will take care of the rest?

Bethesda Softworks tried this approach with the game Fallout3 (Windows) for the handling ingame of MP3, OGG, etc. content. It has lead to no end of nightmares and game crashing.

[cb951303]

Bethesda Softworks tried this approach with the game Fallout3 (Windows) for the handling ingame of MP3, OGG, etc. content. It has lead to no end of nightmares and game crashing.

a bad implementation doesn't mean that the idea won't work. pretty much on all linux systems gstreamer is supported so it would make sense to make the video player capable of using gstreamer compatible codecs, in windows the same thing is valid for windows media player compatible codecs and in mac it's valid for quicktime components.
I'm aware that the player would need to include 3 different codec interfaces for 3 different systems but I think it's a necessary effort.

[Mornedhel]

why don't browser makers design their video player in way that they can use available codecs on the system? this way they can ship what ever they want and people will take care of the rest?

One of the advantages of having a video tag in HTML5 was supposed to be the simplification of codecs. With HTML5-compliant browsers shipping with a single universally-suppported codec, it becomes trivial to ensure your content can be viewed by anybody.

Of course, now, no one agrees on the universally-supported codec.

[Merk42]

"Voting is closed".
I just went through again, and saw that it is the case for some but not all of them.



a bad implementation doesn't mean that the idea won't work. pretty much on all linux systems gstreamer is supported so it would make sense to make the video player capable of using gstreamer compatible codecs, in windows the same thing is valid for windows media player compatible codecs and in mac it's valid for quicktime components.
I'm aware that the player would need to include 3 different codec interfaces for 3 different systems but I think it's a necessary effort.

That's how it used to be
Oh, this video needs quicktime, oh this one windows media, oh this one realplayer etc etc

IDEALLY HTML <video> was supposed to solve this by using SINGLE codec, but it couldn't be agreed upon.

[t0p]

I am totally with Mozilla in believing that the standard should be an unencumbered format. Unfortunately, this is the real world. And in the real word, the dollar rules. Market share rules. Google rules. Whatever they choose is very likely going to become the standard.

I'm all for the idea of petitioning Google to do the "right thing" and choose an unencumbered format. And who knows, maybe they'll go for it. But I'm not holding my breath.

[Skripka]

a bad implementation doesn't mean that the idea won't work. pretty much on all linux systems gstreamer is supported so it would make sense to make the video player capable of using gstreamer compatible codecs, in windows the same thing is valid for windows media player compatible codecs and in mac it's valid for quicktime components.
I'm aware that the player would need to include 3 different codec interfaces for 3 different systems but I think it's a necessary effort.

It isn't the implementation by Bethesda that is largely to blame, in this case. The fact is that there are hundreds if not thousands of codec packs for Windows (alone) out there, of widely varying quality etc for a given software to look for and try to work with.

In Fallout 3's case, most folks agree that if Bethesda had supplied their own codecs on install, and not relied on the presence of 3rd party wildcard codec packs-the game would be less of a headache...of course, there's also lots of shoddy coding by Bethesda too, but codec problems have been just that-the reliance on 3rd party wildcards.

In Linux we got it easy. Of course, we linux users comprise somewhere between an optimistic 5%, to an honestly negligible, number of users.

[siimo]

I for one applaud Firefox's stance. Please keep the web open and free Google and Apple!

If tomorrow I wanted to upload my home videos to my website I do not want to shell out for a H264 license just so my family can watch them or that I can host them on my website.

It is a must that the codec used is free for all, just like PNG for images.

[cb951303]

I get it. A single codec to rule them all would be good but as you all stated "money rules".

One thing though, as much as I want that ogg wins the fight there is really a big quality difference between h264 and theora. Theora is a better alternative to divx but I don't think it can compete with h264 quality-wise.

[phrostbyte]

why don't browser makers design their video player in way that they can use available codecs on the system? this way they can ship what ever they want and people will take care of the rest?

You can basically accomplish this with object embedding before HTML5 even existed. It is a disaster though, because if person X is missing codec Y, the video will fail in strange ways. The whole point of HTML5 video is to bring this kind of thing into the browser, eg like how the <img> tag works now.

[phrostbyte]

Google owns Youtube; and Mozilla (Firefox) is Google's (Chrome) competitor. So I don't think it's outlandish to believe Google want to cut Firefox out of their video thang.

The H.264 license has separate costs for all the following:

(1) Decoders (eg: Chrome/Safari) - $0.10-$0.20 per unit per year, this must also be paid for software given away for free
(2) Encoders (eg: Video editing software) - $2,500 per unit per year
(3) Over the air distribution (eg: TV stations) - Up to $100,000 per year depending on viewership
(4) Internet distribution (eg: YouTube) - Currently royalty free

The MPEG LA provides a grace period, which in practice will excempt most individuals and small businesses from paying these fees. Although this does not mean you can use H.264 without a license. Anyone using H.264 in these capacities must apply and be granted a license anyway, even if their yearly license fee ends up being $0. As part of the license agreement, in order to ensure you are in "compliance", you must share a great deal of your financial and proprietary business information with the MPEG LA, the MPEG LA can order a audit at any time, at your expense.

There is also a "license fee" cap, the maximum any corporation must pay for H.264 usage. This is capped at $5 million per year, currently.

Currently, (4) is royalty free, until then end of this year. In which the MPEG LA will announce a required license fee for any site which contains H.264 video. We don't know what it will be, but knowing the MPEG LA, it will probably be absurdly expensive. Note: Flash and Silverlight users STILL must get a separate license from the MPEG LA, if they use H.264 functionality in those products.

Google of course is a multibillion dollar company, and even at the cap of $5 million, they aren't too worried about H.264 license fees.

In fact, it might help them. Because if H.264 makes it absurdly difficult to start your own video site, Google doesn't have to worry about competition to YouTube. :D Google being evil? It's more probable then you think.

[LightB]

what do you mean by protection? I'm pretty sure anything you see on your browser can be downloaded with trivial methods.

if protection means making "stealing the content" harder then there is "mod_secdownload" for lighttpd which creates temporary file URLs that can be used with html5 video.

Go download a bunch of hulu videos then. Maybe it can be done, I'm sure it can be done at some point or another, but they're just going to keep changing the scheme if it gets defeated.

[drclue]

Google owns Youtube; and Mozilla (Firefox) is Google's (Chrome) competitor. So I don't think it's outlandish to believe Google want to cut Firefox out of their video thang.

Bah! This "don't be evil" crap gets far too much emphasis. Sure, Google aren't as evil as some other corporations. But they are evil nevertheless. Google are no longer a search-and-ads company. With Chrome and ChromeOS they have signalled their intention to grow big in the browser and operating system fields. And Google don't want to be just "big"; they always want to be the biggest.

Google back openness and standards as far as it's in their commercial interest to do so. But they gladly use closed-system stuff when it suits them. I have no problem believing they want to leave Firefox eating Chrome's dust.




As a matter of a little rumor mixed with conjecture,
Google may be buying the company that originated ogg
and then throwing some programmers at it to bring it
on par with H.264

Now if all that is true, it could save them 5 million
a year in licensing fees while at the same time
contributing vastly to the open source effort.

The differences in quality between the two
codecs is nothing a little cash wouldn't cure.

Over the long haul having Firefox around does Google more
good than using H.264 to ditch emm.

--Doc

[murderslastcrow]

There are plenty of other ways to view Youtube videos, anyway. One great example is Totem.

However, I think Google would be making a good impression with their whole 'Google is not evil' slogan if they made the obvious best decision. There is no reason why OGG Theora and Vorbis should NOT be used for these things, and it would ensure compatibility and improvement in the future. These obscure high quality codecs are needless and cumbersome to everyone involved but the owners of that codec.

It really doesn't need to be this way. Google and Youtube have become very ubiquitous. Maybe this will change as people begin to consider net neutrality more seriously.

[cb951303]

Go download a bunch of hulu videos then. Maybe it can be done, I'm sure it can be done at some point or another, but they're just going to keep changing the scheme if it gets defeated.

you don't get to invent new DRM methods everyday. and yes you can download hulu videos and yes it's as trivial as downloading youtube videos.

[Dragonbite]

Over the long haul having Firefox around does Google more
good than using H.264 to ditch emm.

--Doc

The key, though, is that it is Mozilla's choice to not support it, according to them, rather than the technical limitation.

Mozilla is standing on moral grounds, and all the more power to them. Could they look at the possibility of coughing up the cash and working a deal to pay the necessary fines, -er fees,.. um... blackmail money(?) !

This is just the first volley, though, in cloud openness.

[drclue]

The key, though, is that it is Mozilla's choice to not support it, according to them, rather than the technical limitation.


Agreed. Mozilla is more than capable from a technical perspective.



Mozilla is standing on moral grounds, and all the more power to them. Could they look at the possibility of coughing up the cash and working a deal to pay the necessary fines, -er fees,.. um... blackmail money(?) !


Were I Mozilla, my knee jerk reaction would probably have been "NO.",
and after some careful consideration, the reaction would be "HELL NO!!!".


This is just the first volley, though, in cloud openness.

It's not even the first volley, but you are correct in the analogy
that there is a war on.

Be it net neutrality , protocols , standards , codecs etc,
The underpinnings of the Internet are under constant assault
in attempts to install corporate pelting wheels on the
stream of human traffic.

What happens to a FREE browser when it's bullied into
paying 5 million $$$$$ a year to rent it's existence?

What happens when deep pocketed corporations like Microsoft
gain a lock on your browsing experience?

If Mozilla or others in the Internet community were
to cave in and give up their lunch money instead of
taking some lumps and putting up a fight, the
bullies will be back almost daily shaking us all down.

No, this is not just a matter of Mozilla's Morality, but
yet another major battle in the war to decide if the
Internet remains a place of equality or becomes 500 channels of
corporate cable controlling all that you see and hear from behind a
great wall of licenses and other legal clap trap that could soon
look ,read and be like the fine print in a credit card agreement.

Where there is traffic, there will be entities, be they
time warner,Microsoft, News Corp or others trolling about,
looking to setup toll booths and otherwise tax your feet
and the air you and Internet innovation breath.


--Doc

[YeOK]

why don't browser makers design their video player in way that they can use available codecs on the system? this way they can ship what ever they want and people will take care of the rest?

Opera 10.50 on Linux uses GStreamer. So it will make use of any codec you have installed.

[Ric_NYC]

SublimeVideo: Demoing the Future of HTML5 Video

Switzerland-base development and design firm Jilion recently launched a site demonstrating their latest project, SublimeVideo, an HTML5-based video player. Although not publicly available as of yet, this sleek, fast, and plug-in free video player shows off the potential of the upcoming web standard HTML5.

If you've been wondering what the future of web video looks like, look no further than here.
...

Last month, big name social video sharing sites YouTube and Vimeo each announced the debut of HTML5-based videos...
As exciting as both announcements were, neither project holds a candle to what SublimeVideo currently offers. The HTML5-based videos on both sites still feel slow - not exactly demonstrating the internet revolution promised by this new web standard. In addition, neither company is yet offering full-screen HTML5 videos.
***(At the moment, the player only works in Google Chrome, Safari, and IE with Chrome Frame installed.) Oh and it will work in mobile Safari, too.)



Take a look:

http://jilion.com/sublime/video

[Chame_Wizard]

HTML5 FTW:popcorn:

[drclue]

News Corp and our "buddy" Rupert Murdoch
have always reminded me of that outer limits intro
"We will control all that you see and hear".

Now while the patent pool in the h.264 does not mention Rupert Directly....


Columbia Innovation Enterprises, New York, New York (“Columbia” )
Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI), Korea (“ETRI’ )
France Télécom, société anonyme, a corporation of France, Paris, France (“France Télécom” )
Fujitsu Limited, a corporation of Japan, Kawasaki, Japan (“Fujitsu” )
Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V., a corporation of the Netherlands, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (“Philips Electronics” )
Matsushita Electric industrial Co., Ltd., a corporation of Japan, Osaka, Japan (“Matsushita” )
Microsoft Corporation, a corporation of Washington, U.S.A., Redmond, Washington, U.S.A. (“Microsoft” )
Mitsubishi Electric Corporation, a corporation of Japan, Tokyo, Japan (“Mitsubishi Electric” )
Robert Bosch GmbH, a corporation of Germany, Stuttgart, Germany (“Robert Bosch” )
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., a corporation of Korea, Seoul, Korea (“Samsung” )
Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha, a corporation of Japan, Osaka-Fu, Japan (“Sharp” )
Sony Corporation, a corporation of Japan, Tokyo, Japan (“Sony” )
Toshiba Corporation, a corporation of Japan, Tokyo, Japan (“Toshiba” )
Victor Company of Japan, Ltd., a corporation of Japan, Yokohama, Japan (“JVC” )

... my initial research of the background has kept running
into News Corp. While this could all be just co-incidence ,
it certainly would not surprise me since News Corp's
holdings...

[Columbia Journalism Review - Who owns what]
http://www.cjr.org/resources/index.php?c=newscorp

... makes it plain that they indeed do want
to control "all that you see and hear" be it TV, radio , or the Internet.

Thus far *most* of the maneuvering by news corp has been
done with latex gloves, but their has been on occasion some
direct championing of the h.264 protocol and other oddities.

It could all be as I said simple coincidence, but having
seen several court cases with News Corp on the receiving end
I've a great respect for just how crafty they can be.

Even that set aside, some of the folks in the patent pool
should raise a few eyebrows.

[drclue]

The News Corp (Rupert Murdoch) / H.264 plot thickens.

While there are several Internet media properties that
are listed outright as News Corp holdings, there are a
lot of sub-marine holdings and interactions going on
with news corp related to NBC , HULU and possibly many others.

In the HULU case , News Corp keeps it on the down low by only
owning something like 45% on paper, but appearing in the deal
to have majority control of the decision making process.

What the HULU.com ,NBC and other offerings share with Rupert is the
h.264 proprietary codec. There are also interesting interactions
between News Corp and the H.264 patent pool members (Notably Microsoft).

Basically the more I look into this the more it appears
that Rupert is staging yet another (most massive yet) media grab.

So what this means is that the cost of the H.264 license while
trivial in cost to those of the global News Corp monster ilk
are just right for making online media a country club affair
that has the potential to make all online expression subservient
to Microsoft , News Corp and their exclusive club membership.

So basically my previous thought that the H.264 / Rupert link might
be but coincidence is out the window as there is indeed something afoot.

Conspiracy buff, perhaps , especially when there is a lot of evidence
to suggest it is true.

--Doc

[LightB]

you don't get to invent new DRM methods everyday. and yes you can download hulu videos and yes it's as trivial as downloading youtube videos.

Youtube yes, hulu, no. Same goes for other sites like nbc video. Show us how to download hulu and nbc.

[Skripka]

Youtube yes, hulu, no. Same goes for other sites like nbc video. Show us how to download hulu and nbc.

LifeHacker has an easy way of doing it on Windows. 1st hit off Google for:

Hulu video download


Lots of ways on Google. A search string away.

[LightB]

LifeHacker has an easy way of doing it on Windows. 1st hit off Google for:

Hulu video download


Lots of ways on Google. A search string away.

Ok, what about nbc and all the rest? Saying google it doesn't really mean it actually works currently. Even apple movie trailers which are very weakly protected to download, old techniques on the web often don't work.

[cb951303]

Ok, what about nbc and all the rest? Saying google it doesn't really mean it actually works currently. Even apple movie trailers which are very weakly protected to download, old techniques on the web often don't work.

http://www.applian.com/download-videos/

this works with nbc.com. I found it on the first link that google came up with.

[forrestcupp]

(Adobe) They are lazy. They have all this potential to do interesting things, but they just refuse to do it. They don’t do anything with the approaches that Apple is taking, like Carbon. Apple does not support Flash because it is so buggy. Whenever a Mac crashes more often than not it’s because of Flash. No one will be using Flash. The world is moving to HTML5. Steve Jobs.People who say that forget that video isn't the only use for Flash. My son plays a lot of Flash games. html5 is great for videos, but not games.


LifeHacker has an easy way of doing it on Windows. 1st hit off Google for:

Hulu video download


Lots of ways on Google. A search string away.The only real options cost a lot of money. Most of the free ones either have been shut down by Adobe, they don't work anymore because of new drm's in Flash, or they are severely limited (like no HD) to get you to pay for the "pro" version.

So the earlier post that said that downloading Hulu videos is just as trivial as downloading YouTube videos is wrong. There are tons of free options to download YouTube vids.

[LightB]

http://www.applian.com/download-videos/

this works with nbc.com. I found it on the first link that google came up with.

Have you tested it yourself? Doesn't work for every other site, then?

[drclue]

People who say that forget that video isn't the only use for Flash. My son plays a lot of Flash games. html5 is great for videos, but not games.

Actually the HTML5 context and the w3.org standards
it integrates can do anything I've ever seen flash
do and more.

The context affords a powerful integration of
video, raster images,vector images, audio,
programmability and interoperability
never seen before on the web.

A major benefit to the would be game designers
as relates to HTML5 over options like flash is
that in achieving those gaming aspirations
no special (and costly) development tools are required
which should make for a flood
HTML5 gaming options.

It is very reasonable to expect the
appearance of arcade quality games
developed in the HTML5 context

Some interesting examples of HTML5 games
===================================
[TORUS] an interesting rotating cylinder version of tetrus.
http://www.benjoffe.com/code/games/torus/

[Z-Wars] A lot of downloading to start, but promising.
http://z-war.co.cc/

And here is a whole bunch of HTML5 gams
http://www.canvasdemos.com/type/games/


--Doc

[Merk42]

Take a look:

http://jilion.com/sublime/video

Given the browser support, I'm guessing that uses h.264

[NCLI]

If you look at the features they plan to include in the public release, firefox(eg. OGG)-support is listed.

[phrostbyte]

If you look at the features they plan to include in the public release, firefox(eg. OGG)-support is listed.

It's worth noting that Chrome (and Chrome Frame) and Opera also supports Theora. Safari can support it via a plugin. So really Theora has the most browser support at this time. :)

[drclue]

If you look at the features they plan to include in the public release, firefox(eg. OGG)-support is listed.

Well, I hope that the February 17th, 2010
On2 stock holders meeting
goes well and they approve the
Google offer to buy them out.

The On2 company has a whole line of CODECs.
The VP3 version if I remember correctly is
the one that was donated to the open source
world and is what OGG is based upon.

Since what seems like distant time in history
their company has progressed in versions to VP8.

As an interesting observation , the VP6 version
of their CODEC is what is used by Flash to
do the .flv files.

Google has been trying to buy this company for
many many months, but it looks like it may
finally happen.

So hopefully OGG will get an update from VP3 to VP8
and be made open source by Google. (very possible)

The folks at On2 have been involved with with
mobile computing versions of their CODECS too,
so if indeed Google does make this an open source reality
we may escape the Rupert Murdoch / Microsoft Internet, payola
reality that H.264 represents.

Fingers crossed - Toes too.

--Doc

[forrestcupp]

It is very reasonable to expect the
appearance of arcade quality games
developed in the HTML5 context

Some interesting examples of HTML5 games


Wow. I stand corrected. That's great.